Author: blass uri
Date: 22:15:55 01/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 1999 at 20:03:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 10, 1999 at 01:28:23, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On January 09, 1999 at 22:08:43, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On January 09, 1999 at 09:25:23, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On January 09, 1999 at 06:23:08, Micheal Cummings wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On January 08, 1999 at 20:07:06, Mark Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>If Microsoft devoted substantial resources to the creation of a chess playing >>>>>>program, and devoted one year to the project, how would that program compare (in >>>>>>terms of playing strength only) to the best professional chess playing programs >>>>>>on today's market? >>>>>> >>>>>>** >>>>>> >>>>>>What is the point of this poll question? In a sense, IBM has already done this. >>> >>>The point of the poll question is that it is a controversial topic (hence, all >>>of the posts on it). Additionally, nobody else suggested another poll question. >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>If the point of this question were to mean the chess program must be run on a >>>>>>desktop computer, the results would still be the same. It would be better then >>>>>>the other professional chess programs, if that would be the goal for Microsoft. >>>>>> >>>>>>For Microsoft, substantial resources would mean millions of dollars, a team of >>>>>>programmers, a team of computer chess experts (ex. Bob Hyatt), and a team of >>>>>>high rated professional chess players. All working together to meet the goal. >>>>>> >>>>>>With that kind of resources I don?t think the goal of just topping, the best >>>>>>professional chess programs in terms of playing strength currently out would be >>>>>>much of a challenge. >>>>> >>>>>I would like to know one thing, why would Microsoft want to invest the time and >>>>>money to create a chess program. >>> >>>There are no reasons for them to do it. The poll question was "If". >>> >>>>> Its not as though it is big market. Plus what >>>>>are we going to need to run this program, I suggest with the millions of dollars >>>>>invested that the program would be graphically power hungry along with the power >>>>>and memory to then go and run the chess engine. >>>>> >>>>>I woulds suggest 128 Ram, PII450. 16Meg 2D graphics Card. >>>>> >>>>>I think too many people when hearing this will jump on the bandwagon thinking >>>>>that a big company will create a powerful program, This from a company who takes >>>>>2 years over to release operating systems and even when they do is full of bugs. >>>>> >>>>>Its like Deep Blue, used on a super computer >>>> >>>>I do not think that IBM payed to the right people to help them. >>> >>>Why not? Kasparov is still complaining about it. Sounds like they were >>>successful to me. You can almost always get better people, but you shouldn't >>>argue with success. >> >>I expected deeper blue to play better >>It won only because of stupid mistakes of kasparov in the 2 games that it >>won(resigning in a draw position and going to a line that you were not ready to >>go). >> >>Their previous machine failed to win the computer championship >>and did only 3.5 out of 5 (they lost against Fritz3 and drew against wchess when >>the Fritz3 and wchess used pentium90). > > >Blass.. generally your chess comments are right on the mark. But the above >statement is so far wrong I really don't know where to start, other than suggest >that you look back thru prior ICCA journals and find out who won each of the >ACM events starting in 1987. Here's a hint: 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994 >were *all* won by Deep Thought. They didn't participate in the 1992 >computer chess event, and the only other event held was the 1995 tournament that >Fritz won. So out of all those years, they won *every event* except for one >that they participated in. What micro has come even close to that? IE what >micro has won even 1 acm event? Rebel (I think) won in 1992 when no "big iron" >was present. But other than that exception, they've been completely buried by >the deep thought/deep blue guys.. I admit that they were better than other programs because of hardware advantage but I saw some games of them and in at least in 2 games that I saw(I did not see most of the games) they won after the opponent got an advantage after the opening and probably missed a win. I was not impressed by the games. I believe they were better than their oppenents but my impression is that their hardware advantage against micros was something like Pentium400 against 386 and with hardware advantage like this I could expect better results. I believe that Fritz3 (if it was 20 times faster than pentium90 and without losing lines in the opening book) could have better results against the same opponents. (I know that Fritz3 lost to Sos in the first round in 1995 only because of the opening book,deeper blue lost to Fritz3 because of a tactical mistake and not as a simple result of the opening book) Uri > > > > >> >>They were at least 10 times faster than the opponents and it did not help them. >> >>Uri > > > >One game, one tournament, when they played 60 games vs the top computers in >the world and lost exactly *two* games? One to fritz, one to someone else that >I 'think' might have been mephisto. That sounds like total domination to me, >not "it did not help them."
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.