Author: Amir Ban
Date: 01:46:33 11/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 1998 at 21:23:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 08, 1998 at 17:08:12, Amir Ban wrote: > >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... > Ok, this is the data I have: It played 2 games against PC's, lost one (Fritz), and drew one (WChess). If you are desperate to find a win, I may grant you Cheiron (it was a Sun). >> >>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? This is confusing. You based your conclusion on "10+ years of watching Deep Thought shredding micros". Now you are basing everything on two Deep Blue versions that never played against other computers ? >> >>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... > Very revealing. I was wondering when this secret basement match would be mentioned again. In a sense it's appropriate that DB's reputation would be based on such rumours. I remember it was discussed "quite a bit" by Hsu and Campbell: they were trying to remember who were the opponents, what was the hardware :) >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... I also had a lot of shortcomings years ago and I also fixed everything I found. Unlike Hsu, I compete with my improved program, rather than stay at home and claim that I am "obviously" light-years ahead of everyone else. Amir
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.