Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:22:28 11/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2002 at 01:33:16, Uri Blass wrote: >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 They certainly knew _some_ things that DF (and others still seem to not understand). I watched two games over the past 2 days crafty vs tiger 15 and crafty vs DF7. And both games saw the same basic mistake, in a pawn + 2 rooks endgame, with crafty having a "distant majority", _both_ programs voluntarily traded off all the rooks leaving a simple won pawn endgame. DB knew better than that, as did Cray Blitz (and as does Crafty today in fact)...
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.