Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:30:09 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 07:26:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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? The same way Hsu took deep thought to the first deep blue chip design. The same way Hsu took deep blue 1 to the deep blue 2 design. Verilog is _not_ a requirement. > >>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*. Says who/what? I can do 13 plies with _one_ chip... And my "chip" is not an ASIC implementation of anything, just a generic microprocessor. > >> >> >>> >>>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 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.