Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:46:58 11/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
>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, Can you post the CB games then? Or at least give some results? >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). >>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 remember the following: they used Rebel7 and Genius 3 or 4. Pc a P90. Time control 30 seconds average. No games. Only the 10-0. >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... >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... Not quite so. Until they play I would say. The last time they played turned out a disaster for them. Also then they had this enormous speed advantage (your Ferrari 308 so to say). I remember our RGCC discussion that (I believe it was the Fritz game) we caught the program on a horrible horizon effect of just 10 plies. Remember? - Ed -
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.