Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:03:46 03/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2003 at 05:29:41, Chris Carson wrote: >On March 21, 2003 at 22:47:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 21, 2003 at 16:46:42, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On March 21, 2003 at 16:12:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>The problem is that GM's of today may be prepared better against computers so >>>even if programs on 1000 Mhz can do only 2600 performance against humans it does >>>not prove that they are not better than deep thought. >>> >>>When Tiger14 played in argentina against humans it got a performance that is >>>close to 2800 and it used less than 1 ghz. >>> >>>I believe that in other tournaments like the israeli league part of the humans >>>were prepared better against computers and I know at least about one master who >>>trained at home against Fritz before he drew against it(this option was not >>>possible for the opponents of deep thought and looking at games is not the same >>>as playing). >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>What was the time control of the argentina tournament? DT played what is >>probably the best time control (for humans) of 40 moves in two hours or >>40 moves in 2.5 hours. NO faster games were used for the 25 game fredkin >>requirement, as the fredkin prize stipulated 40/2hrs or slower. > >40 moves in 2 hours, we have debated this over and over and over many times >before. DT is history, it can be exceeded with older commercial programs (Chess >Tiger for one) on slow single processor (800 Mhz)hardware. I've heard the same nonsense _many_ times. 1983: "Belle's time has passed, it has been surpassed by the faster hardware and newer software." For an interesting tidbit, look up who won the 1986 ACM computer chess tournament in Dallas Texas. Count 'em out if you want. But that doesn't make 'em obsolete.
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.