Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:23:31 11/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 1998 at 17:08:12, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 07, 1998 at 17:04:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I don't believe so, no. Based on 10+ years of experience in watching older >>and slower versions of deep thought absolutely shred micro programs, and >>factoring in the 100-fold improvement (at least) in the speed of DB over >>the older Deep Thought, I'd think that there might not be a better commercial >>program for even longer if my suspicion that doubling in speed every 18 months >>turns out to be true.. I don't see how it can continue... and without that >>performance boost, micros vs db would be totally hopeless... > >Bob, > >Those 10+ years ended in 1993 or so, the last time that Deep Thought played and >won against a micro. As you well know, post-1993 versions of Deep Blue played >very few games against micros and won none of them. Don't know about you, but in 1994, I was in Cape May New Jersay, and watched the same old deep thought hardware blow everyone off the board. Micros included... and I certainly don't understand your last phrase "played very few and won none" so I assume you can give some data. I would invert that a bit... it played very few but won *all*... the only exception was the game vs Fritz in Hong Kong... > >In 1993 the top micros were rated about 2300 (according to SSDF, the top four >are rated 2322, 2302, 2292, 2288), so dominating them doesn't prove superiority >over today's top programs. What's more, if yout play over old DT/DB games, it >seems to get into serious trouble in every other game it plays, but gets away >with it. There was a game it played as white against Zarkov in ACM (1992, I >think), which it made every attempt to lose, but Zarkov apparently didn't want >to win. Playing over this game, you realize it is lost not only against the top >programs of today, but even against the middle of the pack. I also wonder how >many of today's top programs would fail to exploit DB-Prototype's bad opening >against Star Socrates. Fine... DT didn't play great. But it blew everyone out tactically. But what does that have to do with "deep blue"? based on hardware two generations newer than the 1992 Deep Thought that was still unbeatable? And let me remind you once again... final game of kasparov vs deep blue... two commercial programs were given that position playing white, against an IM, and both lost badly... That's not an easy position to win... and it seems that the best programs of one year ago couldn't pull it off against an IM, much less Kasparov... I don't remember the programs... I believe Rebel and Hiarcs, but I'm not sure. It was posted either here or on r.g.c.c... I thought it was interesting... > >I think as late as 1995 (DB Prototype, Hong-Kong), DT/DB had such serious flaws >in its evaluation and search (as Fritz showed), that I seriously doubt it could >equal today's top programs. About the later two DB versions that played >Kasparov, they were obviously stronger, but never played a single game against a >micro. > >Amir on the contrary, don't forget "the" 10 game match... it's been discussed by Hsu and Campbell quite a bit now... pretty revealing... And it certainly was "stronger".. don't think anyone would think to compare the DB-2 generation of chess processor to the deep thought II which had lots of well-known hardware shortcomings... evaluation and search related... Hsu realized this also and fixed everything they found...
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.