Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:05:04 11/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1998 at 00:15:39, blass uri wrote: > >On November 08, 1998 at 21:23:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >I do not think that the opening that kasparov played was the problem but the >fact that kasparov was not ready to play it. >I am not sure if deep blue can win against the same IM or against top program >with white. > >Uri I wouldn't argue at all although after Nxe6 (the position where the games with the IM started) black has problems... but so does white as he is a piece down and has to prove Ne6 is sound... But that really isn't the point in this game discussion. The point that always comes up is "Kasparov blew the order of two consecutive moves and allowed Nxe6 which resulted in an 'easy win' for white." I still say that this is *not* an easy win, and used the commercial vs IM games someone posted on r.g.c.c early this year as evidence that white doesn't have an easy 1-0 time of it... The point was that game 6 wasn't over after Nxe6 IMHO. The game stillhas to be won... and most (if not all) programs would still not have won playing Kasparov or even against a strong IM...
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.