Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:33:16 11/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2002 at 19:55:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 14, 2002 at 18:49:45, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On November 14, 2002 at 17:20:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 2002 at 12:57:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On November 14, 2002 at 11:26:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 14, 2002 at 03:33:48, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 13, 2002 at 16:52:35, David Hanley wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>If you play the current best program on current hardware against that >>>>>>>>combination, it's also going to blow it over. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Against the kasparov, etc? Well, well see. But i expect that it won't >convince either camp. >>>>>> >>>>>>No. DB of then against the top of now. I suspect DB would get spanked. >>>>>> >>>>>>DB of then against the programs of then is another matter. >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>GCP >>>>> >>>>>I'll change the metaphor a bit, but if by "spanked" you mean that DB's >>>>>fist would get beat to a bloody pulp by the faces of today's micros" then >>>>>I might agree. >>>>> >>>>>But _only_ in that metaphorical context. >>>> >>>>If it's only about metaphors, I think that computer chess is also a topic for >>>>me. I have the concrete question if you could give us a comparison from the old >>>>days. How would you compare the difference in strength between the actual >>>>commercials and DB2 in giving the names of ancient programs? Could we say, CRAY >>>>BLITZ against FRITZ 2 or what would you prefer? >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>I >>> >>>I am not sure what you are asking. I don't personally have a lot of experience >>>with older >>>commercials. The only experiment I ever ran caused a lot of ruckus in r.g.c >>>(prior to the >>>days of r.g.c.c) when I ran several games between a single-cpu Cray Blitz vs >>>Chess Genius >>>2 on the fastest PC of that day, which I think was a 486/66 or something >>>similar. It ended >>>like the DB single chip vs the micros ended, except that I _did_ post the games, >>>without >>>posting the name of the opponent. But someone (Chris Whittington I think) >>>figured it out >>>because it was a king safety debacle for the micro. >> >>The question was for the relation between such entities. Of course you give an >>example out of your own experience, but I wanted just know two names and then >>the probably same relation than between DB2 and JUNIOR X. >> >>What I didn't understand during the Bahrain hype. Why these guys pretend that >>their "new" programming intelligence could equalize, no, beat the velocity of >>DB2. That is completely irrational in my mind. Could you explain that? Also >>about the Friedel wording that DB2 was faster but did also a huge amount of >>redundance with the many processors... > >The reason they make those hyperbolic statements is that they _know_ there is >little >chance they can be proven wrong. Because Deep Blue 2 is simply no longer >playing >chess. IE once someone stops doing something, and becomes too old to do it >again, then >it is easy for others to say "I am better now than he was back then" because >they know >there is no way to disprove that (without a time machine). The reason that I say that I believe that the programs of today are better is some analysis of the games with the logfiles. The claim that the programs of today are better is not a claim that is only a claim of some programmers. There are logfiles of the games and in a few cases it is possible to compare times that deeper blue needs to see something with time that Deep Fritz need to see the same thing. My comparison suggested that Deeper blue was only sligthly faster than Deep Fritz6(p800) (less than twice faster). Based on this I guess that in tactics deeper blue was only something like Deep Fritz on 1200Mhz and I am talking about Deep Fritz6. I did not do comparison of most of the logfiles with deep fritz analysis so I may change my mind if I get more data. My impression is also that in positional play they were not better than the programs of today. They may have more quantity of knowledge in their evaluation but quantity is not quality. Uri
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.