Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:26:53 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 22:34:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 20:47:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 18, 2002 at 17:09:08, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >> >>>On August 18, 2002 at 15:27:44, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>> >>>I agree with you completely, there is a reason that todays top GM's show a lot >>>of respect for players of the old days when talking about them... >>> >>>You could also flip the tennis analogy and have todays top players go back in >>>time and see how they would fare with wooden rackets and slower balls, against >>>the top players from back then. >>> >>>Regards >>>Jonas >> >>I hope you realize very clearly that Deep Blue can't get upgraded. >>Yes it was a big achievement for 1 man to make all that. The chip programmed >>by 1 person. It's incredible. > >Would you mind explaining that? > >1. The software part of the search most definitely could be "upgraded" >as it was done many times... > >2. The hardware could _also_ be upgraded. Deep thought was upgraded to >deep blue. Deep Blue was upgraded to deep blue 2. Why would you write >something that is so obviously wrong??? the chip was improved no doubt. it was not even in verilog Bob. How to *ever* upgrade that to todays 0.13 or 0.18 micron? >3. Even if the chess chips were "static" could not IBM give them a _bigger_ >(or faster) SP2? They could easily fab more chips. And run faster... Of >course that overlooks points 1 and 2 above completely, which is not reasonable. 10000 chips gives just 13 ply *at most*. > > >> >>But please don't compare it with 2002 software. It's going to get raped, >>dicked and completely annihilated *everywhere*. Opening, first moves out of >>book with structure, mobility, even good/bad bishop, king safety (see the >>major errors it made there which none of todays program makes), exchanging >>to endgame (2 horrible exchanges of a queen in the 1997 games, one Qxg6?? >>being a full blunder making from a better position a lost one) and finally >>endgame. >> >>So the comparision is not fair, but i hope you realize how bigtime it >>would get completely *destroyed* with induction against todays programs. >>Not a single area where it is impressing. Let's not discuss tactics. >>If you get 11-12 ply then tactics do not decide the game. I feel it >>wasn't bad tactically at all if i look to the design specifications of >>the extensions. >> >>Best regards, >>Vincent
This page took 0.01 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.