Author: blass uri
Date: 09:28:58 01/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 1999 at 09:31:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 11, 1999 at 01:15:55, blass uri wrote: > >> >>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. > >That I wouldn't argue with. However, it proves a different point than you >intended... that they could get _inferior_ opening positions (because their >opening book wasn't great in the early days) and _still_ win. In 1994 at the >ACM event they had to forfeit round 1 because of a power failure at the Watson >computer center, and they _still_ won the tournament. When you win even after >a bad opening, or after losing a game to a time forfeit when your computer is >inaccessible, and you _still_ win the tournaments, you must be doing something >right, because it can't be all luck... I do not think it was all luck but I think they could win bad positions because of better hardware. I agree I should not say that the better hardware did not help them but only that it did not help them the same as I expect. The fact that they played bad in the opening in some games because of the engine proves that IBM did not hire the right people for deep thought. I know that they hired better people for deeper blue but I still believe they could do better program with other people. even if I assume that deeper blue in the same level of the top programs(assuming the top programs are 2000 times faster) > > > > >> >>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. > > >it is more like a Pentium 400 vs a calculator. They are some 2000 times faster >than the best micros at present... I did not mean to deep blue but to deep thought when I said that it is something like Pentium400 against 386 If it is more than that then I am more convinced that other programmers could do better in the same hardware. > > > > >> >>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. > >Remember they lost 2 games to computers in 10+ tournaments. On equal hardware, >fritz didn't do very well in the last two WCCC events. Certainly nothing like >DT/DB did for a sustained period of time... > > > >> >>(I know that Fritz3 lost to Sos in the first round in 1995 only because of the >>opening book,deeper blue I know that I should write deep thought Sorry for the mistake. I intended to deep thought(I do not like deeper blue and it may be an unconscious reason for this mistake) >> lost to Fritz3 because of a tactical mistake and not as >>a simple result of the opening book) > >Deep Thought lost to fritz after following a bad opening line, and then playing >one move on its own and getting into severe trouble. It had a very weak king- >safety analysis (remember, this was not deep blue II, or even deep blue I, but >the original deep thought processors).
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.