Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:00:19 11/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1998 at 04:46:33, Amir Ban wrote: >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 *know* I don't write that confusing. What I said was this: DT had lots of *known* design weaknesses in the chess-specific hardware, from the evaluation to the search itself, and yet it rolled over every program around, from the micros right on up to the supercomputers, *in spite of* those substantial weaknesses. The hardware was redesigned at least twice in a major way, from the late "deep thought" hardware to Deep Blue I, to the chip used in the last match (I'll refer to it as DB II). I brought this up because *you* were mixing micros of today with deep thought of 7-8 years ago. From experience, Cray Blitz of today still outplays any micro I know of, yet I know exactly how it did against Deep Thought and "deep blue prototype". But more importantly, I also know just how much better the current Deep Blue II is when compared to those older versions of their hardware. And their old hardware was so overwhelming... If you actually think a micro of today could beat Deep Thought, there's not much I can say to change your mind. And that's ok. But the difference between you and I is that *I* have sat across the table from them on several occasions and seen what they can do. And I have sat across the table from micro-based programs many times to know how *they* played as well. And the gap between the two looks somewhat like the Grand Canyon. And then there is deep blue, which is far stronger (faster, smarter, etc.) than the program I had to play, and *no* I don't think it is weaker today than in 1994 when they forfeited round 1 at the ACM event and *still* won the event. My summary: I don't think a micro of today could beat the deep thought of the early 1990's except for the random statisitical oddity. A match? *zero* chance. A single game? A vanishingly small chance, but a chance (Fritz proved this at Hong Kong of course). > >>> >>>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 :) > There wasn't any doubt about the opponents... Rebel and Genius. There was some discussion about the "version". And even the actual CPU speed. But the hardware wasn't "cheesy" while they were slowed down to 1/500th of their normal speed. So there's not much room for complaint there, IMHO... I trust their results and statements. And will always do so until I see them say something that I *know* to be false... I doubt that will happen however... > >>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 Two years ago I had a neighbor that owned a classic Ferrari 308. I *knew* it would blow the doors off of my truck without ever having to go to the race track with him to run the 1/4 mile... There are some things that you can "know" even without a competition...
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.