Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:12:46 03/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2003 at 15:36:43, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 21, 2003 at 14:26:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 21, 2003 at 11:13:39, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On March 21, 2003 at 10:20:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On March 21, 2003 at 08:17:32, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 20, 2003 at 23:32:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 20, 2003 at 19:19:44, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On March 20, 2003 at 18:57:55, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On March 20, 2003 at 17:07:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's always interesting to read your short snippets about the history of >>>>>>>>computer chess. So when are you going to do us all a favor and write a book? :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It was named "scratchy". It had the best win/lose record of anything that ever >>>>>>>>>played on >>>>>>>>>ICC. Something like 130 wins, 1 loss or some such. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Even with all of the rating addicts who no-play other computers, no computer has >>>>>>>>surpassed this mark? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think that it is easy to surpass that mark. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You only need to have friends that you can always beat and set a formula to play >>>>>>>only against your friends. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Not if almost all the opponents are GM players. :) >>>>> >>>>>Hmm, wonder how DT would do against todays "inflated" GM's whe have better >>>>>anti-computer experience and knowledg? >>>> >>>>I'd suspect it would do the same as it did back then. The people that played it >>>>a lot already >>>>knew a lot about anti-computer play and they knew how dangerous the machine was. >>>> >>>>> Also wonder how DT would do against >>>>>players who use 1Ghz or faster comps/programs to help if they played DT today? >>>> >>>>No idea. Most of the DT games on the chess server were 2 12 type games, so >>>>using >>>>a computer to help the human would be doable... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I am sure that DT would not be 130 points higher than anyone or thing on ICC >>>>>today. DT was ancient history and so was DB, good in their day, but that day is >>>>>past. You can see DBII at the Smithsonian here in DC. It is gone and in a >>>>>museum with all the other old relics. ;) >>>> >>>>The atomic bombs are "relics of the past" as well. >>>> >>>>But don't screw around with those relics. There's nothing else close to them, >>>>60 years after >>>>they were created. :) >>>> >>>>Old != obsolete. >>> >>>I do not think DT would do as well today, not even close. The Nukes of 60 years >>>ago were very dangerous, however, they are not even close to the strength of >>>todays bombs or even bombs from the mid 1950's. Technology moves foward. DT >>>was great in it's day, but that day is gone. You can see it for free here in DC >>>and go across the street and see the airplanes/bombs from the 1940's (still >>>dangerous) to the 1990's (very dangerous, no comparison, all obsolete). Same >>>for the Dino's (dangerous, but obsolete). :) >>> >>>old technology != current technology strength/destruction/performance >> >> >>That's a serious mistake to make. Back in my active Karate days, when we had an >>annual state event, there was one "old geezer" that was always there competing >>in >>the 3-4 degree black belt group. And several used to comment about "jeez, hope >>I don't >>draw him for a match, but I'll try to take it easy on him if I do..." >> >>That "old geezer" put more black belts flat on their backs than any other single >>competitor at the events. :) >> >>_never_ underestimate something just because it is "old". Deep Thought is >>_still_ >>faster than any PC program running today, although the PCs are getting closer >>every >>six months. > >I do not see how can you compare speed. >Nodes per second mean nothing and I know that Deep thought has some problems >with repetition detection so I cannot compare their nodes with nodes of other >programs. Deep Thought had a max search speed of 14,000,000 nodes per second. I can certainly compare that to machines of today at 1ghz, and conclude that I'd rather have deep thought. It obviously wasn't weak, producing a 2650 result against 25 consecutive GM players. I dind't try to conclude _exactly_ how much better or worse Deep Thought might be. I just concluded that it would certainly not be a _lot_ weaker than today's programs, and probably a bit bit stronger in fact. > >It is comparing apples with orange because the program of today cannot run on >deep thought hardware and deep thought could not run on today machines. Nobody suggested either to the best of my knowledge. Just comparing deep thought to a 1ghz processor/program today. > >Speed is also not the point but level of chess and there was a big progress in >software from the time of deep thought(for commercial programs more than 200 >ssdf points on the same hardware). > what "big progress"? DT did pretty well against GM players. On ultra-fast hardware today's programs might well be better. But at just 1ghz I doubt it. >It is clear that today GM's have more option to train against computers so >it is logical to expect them to score today better against the same level. > >They also have more options to cheat(I believe that big majority of them do not >cheat but minority can change the result and if they are smart cheaters who >cheat only in part of their moves then it is practically impossible to prove >that they cheat) > >Uri I'm not talking about playing on a chess server.
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.