Author: Chris Carson
Date: 02:22:55 03/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2003 at 21:05:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 23, 2003 at 11:22:47, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On March 23, 2003 at 10:55:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>DT is not compteative. When was the last time it played a game? DBjr might be >>competative, but would loose a match aginst any of the top 5 on 2Ghz or faster >>hw. >> >>I challenge you to produce DT and play any of the top 5 in a 6 game match on >>2Ghz HW. Same for DBjr. You said DT and DBjr are still around, so I call your >>bluff, set up the match and talk when you can produce some evidence. Good luck. >> >>Fritz 3 beat DB prototype (DT on DB hardware) for the 1995 Computer World Chess >>Championship. In Fact, the last time DT won a world Championship was in 1989 >>(DB never won) and the last time Belle won the World Computer Chess Championship >>was in 1980. The commercial programs have held the World Computer Chess >>Championship since 1992. >> > > >No "big iron" competed in the 1992 WCCC event. Deep Blue prototype (deep >blue on deep thought hardware, not deep thought on deep bue hardware) did >compete and did lose a game to fritz. One game. If you conclude superiority >from one game, more power to you. I look at the previous ten years and >conclude exactly the opposite. > >As far as "calling mhy bluff" there's nothing to call. Deep Thought hardware >_is_ still around according to the deep blue team. And DB Jr _has_ provided >analysis on ICC within the past two years. So it _does_ exist. Whether it >will every play a game against a public opponent is another matter beyond >my control. > >But feel free to draw any conclusion you want... We may have different opinions on this issue, however, I do value your insights on the subject. > > > > >>See: http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/wcc-comp.htm
This page took 0 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.