Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:57:13 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 00:59:36, Slater Wold wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 00:25:27, K. Burcham wrote: > >> >> >>Robert, I know you are more qualified than most to have an opinion about this >>comparison of Deep Blue to Deep Fritz. I know you have many reasons to have >>formed this opinion. As you know I find the electrical/mechanical machine we >>call Deep Blue very fascinating for its time. >> >>I have heard your comparisons about hardware, software, search depth, memory, >>search methods, etc. that explains some of your reasoning about comparing Deep >>Blue to todays programs. >> >>My question is, separate from all of this technical discussion, do you have >>several moves that you have studied with todays programs that you know these >>programs cannot find? >>What have you found to be the most difficult of Deep Blues moves? >>Would you please post your findings here for others to study? >> >>thanks >>kburcham > >I have read just about everything there is to read about DB. Lectures, thesis, >ICCA journals, everything. While I'm not Bob, I will take a stab at answering >your questions. > > >DB and later DBII were massive machines. DBII had 400+ CPUs designed for the >sole purpose of examining a chess board. While I believe that the software was >not as advanced as todays, I do have to remind you they did some pretty fancy >extensions (among other things) that cannot be afforded on a PC at this time. > >Did DB or DBII ever make a move that cannot be reproduced by a computer now? >Not that I have found. If you give a certain engine a certain amount of time, >most will always find DB moves. Some faster, and some slower. Some a lot >faster, and some a lot slower. > >Why? > >Anyone can look at the games played against DBII and tell Kasparov was *not* on >top of his game. DBII was never given the oppurtunity to shine, thus, it never >did. There are I believe 2-3 positions in DB/DBII's history that still give >some programs a hard time, but nothing that switching PCs or programs won't >solve. > >However. > >You can look back at Deep Thought and Deep Thought II and pick some of it's >games to compare. Granted, you will not have a one on one comparison, but you >will have a close one. DBII was fairly stronger than DTII, however, they are in >somewhat the same realm. > >Nolot. > >Back in the 90's when Nolot released his position suite, he said that it would >be 10+ years before computers where getting these moves (and lines) right. DTII >completly squashed Nolot. At that time, no program or PC could even *dream* of >getting those positions solved. At present day, *some* programs with good HW >can get *some* of the Nolot positions correct. AFAIK none do as well overall as >DTII. It proves nothing. I believe that programmrs can teach their program to solve the nolot position faster than Deep thought but if the result is going to be that it is weaker in games they are not going to do it. And please, try to keep in mind DTII was 2 generations before DBII. 2M >nps vs 200M nps. (Ok, 150M nps. Whatever number you want to pick.) > >TPR. > >DTII was crushing GMs at a time where if you had brought a PC to play a GM, >people would laugh at you. DTII was better than the hardware+software of 1987-1995 No doubt about it but Fritz3(p90) already drew with some GM's in a tournament when it achieved the IM norm(It could not achieve better than the IM norm but one of the reason is simply the fact that the weak players trained against Fritz3 when the GM's did not train against it because they trusted their skill. After the Kramnik-DF7 match, it's looking like >you'll get this same attitude nowadays. > > >I will leave you with this; why if we have advanced SO much in computer chess, >is the "best" computer chess software on the best computer hardware getting torn >apart by a GM? Because he got the software in advanced? Give me a break. >That's part of normal chess. No getting your opponent is not part of normal chess. > You study your opponenets before you play them. There is big difference between studying games of the opponent and studying the opponent. players can study games but the opponent also can study the same games and learn not to do the same mistake again. In the case of Deep Fritz-Kramnik we have the case when Kramnik can study more than games when in the case of deeper blue-Kasparov Kasparov even could not study public games of something close to deeper blue. >You don't think Frans and his crew were going over ever Kramnik game played? I >am sure it helped Kramnik, but nothing like most people think. I already explained that studying public games is not the problem. Kasparov also had no possibility to study public games of deeper blue and the difference between deep thought and deep blue is bigger than the difference that kasparov can expect from the new Junior so even kasparov has relatively better conditions against Junior. > > >Look at the DT games. Look at the DF games. It is clear to me that there is a >pretty huge difference in quality of play. No It is not clear and even if it is clear it is not a proof because it is clear that if you know the weaknesses of the opponent it is easier for you to go for positions that the opponent does not play well. The fact that kramnik did not change his normal opening proves nothing because kramnik is not deterministic and the preperation was not what to play in the first few moves but what to play later when the position is still book position. Uri
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.