Author: Chris Carson
Date: 06:32:04 03/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2003 at 00:03:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Obsolete: "1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful". Source Websters Online: http://www.m-w.com/home.htm CT/DT/DB are no longer in use. They are still useful, but no longer in use. Obsolete by definition. I wish it were not so, I would like to see a new version with updated s/w, hw, ..., but it is not going to happen.
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.