Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:33:44 01/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2003 at 14:38:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 11, 2003 at 09:39:04, K. Burcham wrote: > >In 1997 i won easily in blitz from all programs. They knew nothing. >Bad evaluation. Very passive play. Small search depths. That's a crock. I can easily resurrect a 1997 version of Crafty, and can find some 1997 hardware. In 1997 Crafty was whacking GM players with ease at 5 0 type blitz games. Whenever you want to show your chess skill let me know and I can set up a demo on ICC for you. I'd have to think about 1997 hardware, but I ran on a 500mhz alpha in 1996, so that should give some indication of what the hardware should be. I have a couple of 750mhz machines which are probably in the right speed-range for 97. > >Cars on the other hand advanced hardly from 1997 to 2002. The advances of cars >from 1997 - 2002 is in no way comparable to the advances in all respects of >computerchess 1997 to 2002. > >We talk about the weakest chains getting stronger by nearly 500 rating points >*at least*. 500? ? ? ? ? > >Let's take openingsbook. the 1997 openingsbook of deep blue was a random book >with 4000 hand tuned moves. > >4000 hand tuned moves is very little. > >When compared to todays openings books that means it will get out of book on >average with -1.0 down in score, if not more. > that is a crock. I have a big opening book, and _I_ won't get out of book "on average with -1.0 if not more"... >So junior - deepblue i estimate at around 20-0. Just like you estimate what can be done with functional languages? With NUMA hardware? With SMP locks? :) > >12 points from book. 1 point from middlegame. 5 points from attacking the king >and mating deep blue (and it not showing any positional problem until it is too >late. then when it smells it, it sees probably more than junior there despite >junior searching deeper; singular extensions have that habit) and 4 points in >endgame. > >Best regards, >Vincent > If you could win games with your mouth, you might have a serious chance. But the mouth doesn't play the game, unfortunately... >> >> >>I do not understand the comparision anyway. We do not compare a 1910 car with a >>2002 car either. >> >>You compare deep blue. no nullmove, no good eval (for 1997 standards sufficient >>though) with the formula 1 cars that we build today. >> >> >>Best Regards, >>Vincent >> >> >>Vincent, lets use your example since you want to compare Deep Blue to the >>automobile, and the formula 1 cars. >>Lets go to the salt flats with a 1997 car, (more realistic time reference), that >>is capable of a top speed of 2000 miles an hour. Also take a car from 2003, and >>this top speed is 200 miles per hour. the 2003 car has more knowledge about the >>goals wanted by the humans, get to the finish line first. the 2003 car is more >>stable, rides better, better interface, looks better, etc. >>i think i will put my money on the speed for now. >> >>kburcham
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.