Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is Deep Blue still considered better than Deep Junior ?

Author: Omid David

Date: 05:28:47 08/19/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 18, 2002 at 23:22:24, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On August 18, 2002 at 15:42:34, Omid David wrote:
>
>>On August 18, 2002 at 09:06:02, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>>
>>>   Kasparov proved that he can defeat programs at fast time controls when he
>>>defeated Deep Thought in a game/90 two games match in 1989. This program was
>>>weaker than Deep Junior is today, as it searched well over 2,000,000 NPS, but
>>>didn't have as much chess knowledge as Deep Junior.  He also defeated Deep Blue
>>>in 1996. This program is obviously much faster than Deep Junior is today, but in
>>>my opinion Deep Junior still has more chess knowledge than Deep Blue had back in
>>>1996.
>>>
>>>PS: It is hard to compare Deep Blue of 1997 vs Deep Junior of today, but in my
>>>opinion Deep Junior Chess Knowledge could make up for the difference of Deep
>>>Blue super calculating power of 1997.
>>>
>>>Pichard.
>>
>>Deep Blue retired at peak, exactly like Fischer. However, saying Deep Blue is
>>the strongest ever, is as ridiculous as saying Fischer is still the strongest
>>player.
>
>
>Maybe or maybe not.  If someone says to you "I have program X running on
>secret hardware and it is searching at over 200M nodes per second" what
>would _you_ conclude?  Would it particularly matter whether program X was
>gnuchessx or Fritz?  IE I saw gnuchess clean the commercial's clocks a few
>years ago on ICC when someone ran it on a _really_ hot box.  It rolled over
>everyone, commercial and non-commercial, with relative ease.
>
>We know how fast DB searched.  Is there _any_ convincing argument to offset
>that ridiculous speed???

Instead of comparing the speed, or algorithmic sophistication seperately, we'd
better compare them altogether, comparing only the *strength*. In 1997 Deep Blue
was most probably the strongest chess playing computer, however its mere
retirement shows that IBM wasn't sure whether it can still hold the lead.

Regarding your example, if someone tells me his program X running on a secret
hardware is searching more than 200M NPS, I'd suggest him to come to a
tournament and prove its strength (not mere speed!).

Deep Blue can very well still be the fastest searcher, however that shouldn't
lead to any conclusion regarding strength. Since 1992 no brute force searcher
has been able to win the WCCC. Take MIT's 256x CilkChess and the 1024x DIEP as
the latest examples. (In fact all the WCCC winners since 92 have been forward
pruners.)

Omid.



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.