Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:21:02 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 22:38:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: If you have been there bob why have you forgotten how VERY BAD the games were in world champs 1980-1991. Complete blunders every few moves. Material getting hung every few moves. Do you admit this? >On August 18, 2002 at 20:44:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 18, 2002 at 15:27:44, José Carlos wrote: >> >>The thing is: deep blue can't train at all. It's a hardware chip. >>Incompatible hardware design which only works for that 0.60. It's >>not even Verilog. So obviously my comparision was very good! >> >>>On August 18, 2002 at 12:41:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On August 18, 2002 at 11:31:54, Chris Taylor 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. >>>>> >>>>>One way would be to play some games with Deep Blue and Deep Junior. Guess that >>>>>would settle once and for all who is the strongest. Or would it just pour fuel >>>>>on the **whos** best fire. Put together the blue box and match it up. After >>>>>all it did beat the best player in the world at that time! The advert could be >>>>>quite powerful. The machine that beat Kaspy goes for Junior. Methinks there >>>>>could be some money to be made here? So this may not happen, shame? >>>> >>>>that will of course never happen. Just like fischer still is world >>>>champion, deep blue will be world champion in some scientist eyes forever >>>>too. >>>> >>>>To be clear. I feel that any 2650+ player of todaywill wipe out fischer >>>>if he plays like he played in 1970. >>>> >>>>New theory, better tactics, more insight in strategies, better training. >>>> >>>>A 2650 player of today is going to crush any world champ from before Karpov >>>>of course. No doubts. >>>> >>>>Robert J Fischer when the rating list started had 2780 or something. that was >>>>superb compared to anyone in those days. He was the best back then. No one >>>>was as good. >>>> >>>>But the level has improved a lot. Many will say now: "this is not a fair >>>>compare a modern 2650 player against someone who had only an old >>>>book from capablanca and tarrasch, if he could read german anyway". >>>> >>>>In fact a grandmaster did this comparision. He compared a top tournament >>>>in 1991 with a top tournament from 1920. The grandmaster was called Nunn >>>>if i remember well. >>>> >>>>The last few players in that tournament around the start of the 20th >>>>century, they simply blundered away piece >>>>after piece. Would be rated at most 1500 nowadays. >>>> >>>>The 'better players' in the tournament, considered *clear world top* >>>>back then, they blundered on average 5 times a game. >>>> >>>>*no modern topgrandmaster is doing that*. >>>> >>>>The level of the world top increases. This is logical. Suppose you >>>>get to the tennis court with a wooden racket. Even if you're called >>>>John McEnroe you will be of course get completely annihilated. A wooden >>>>racket and services of 160KM/hour (the speed at which McEnroe served) it >>>>is no compare to the 180-220 KM/hour services of modern tennis of today. >>>> >>>>He won't manage a single break of course. >>>> >>>>This is logical. Sport progresses. computerchess even faster. saynig that >>>>deep blue/deep thought was good in its days is justified. It beated some >>>>GMs. That the GMs played big shit games because they cared shit as they >>>>had nothing to proof and would get money anyway, that's no issue here. >>>> >>>>The issue is that it is so *obvious* that software in 2002 is much better >>>>than in 1997 that i am amazed that only Hyatt here doubts it. > > >Vincent. I have "been there" and "done that". That gives me a bit better >perspective than you, who have only "talked about doing it" for so very long. >I competed with them. You did not. I played games against them. You did >not. I watched their program produce analysis. You did not. I watched them >dismantle _everyone_ they played. You did not. > >My "perspective" has a bit more "meat" in it as a result. Because I _saw_ >the thing, while you only "imagine how it must have been..." > >Another thing wrong with your "statement" above. I'm not arguing that >"1997 software is better than 2002 software." I've _never_ tried to make >that claim. I _do_ claim that the 1997 DB _system_ is better than anything >we have today. But "system" includes hardware _and_ software... > >Their hardware was a _huge_ advantage that more than made up for any software >shortcomings... IE Deep Thought played like a 2650 player while having a basic >flaw in repetition detection in it. Their speed offset that shortcoming... > > > > > >>>> >>>>>Chris >>> >>> Couldn't disagree more. Give Capablanca or Lasker a couple of months to train >>>against today's GM's and they'll do quite well. Talented players learn fast, >>>Vincent. It's not like programs. A program is "closed", it can't modify itself. >>>A player such as Lasker would be able to catch up in very little time. >>> As for tennis, a fair comparison would be give McEnroe a new racket and see >>>how long does he need to get used to it. Otherwise it's not a fair comparison. >>>Lasker brain would not be obsolete today. His knowledge would be, but knowledge >>>can be learnt. >>> >>> José C.
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.