Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:55:09 03/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2003 at 09:32:04, Chris Carson wrote: >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. Actually point 1 does not apply. Deep Thought and Deep Blue Jr are _still_ around. We've had DB Jr on ICC a few times giving analysis for GM games on occasion. "no longer useful" certainly would not apply to a machine that fast... Being "inactive" is a long way from being "non-competitive" as implied. Belle was a prime example of that in 1986.
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.