Author: Howard Exner
Date: 13:07:51 01/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 1999 at 11:11:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 13, 1999 at 00:30:07, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On January 12, 1999 at 09:14:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> >>>As a note, deep thought running at under 2M nodes per second produced a true >>>GM rating over 24 consecutive games to claim the fredkin level 2 prize. I >>>don't know of any program that could do that today. IE fritz only needs to go >>>3-4x faster to reach this speed. Yet I haven't seen it win a game vs a GM at >>>tournament time controls, much less perform at 2600+ over 24 consecutive games >>>at 40/2 games... >> >>This observation of Fritz vs GM's at 40/2 can be countered with your own words. >>You've reprimanded folks for them saying, Deep Thought/Blue did not >>win all the ACM events by correctly pointing out that how could >>they have won them all when they were not entered in them all. (Recall >>your argument to the statement "Deep Blue has not won a recent computer >>event") Well ... ? >> >>How can Fritz achieve this if it is not entered in 40/2 GM encounters? >> >>Yes I agree that DT's GM rating based on the 24 consecutive games is a great >>accomplishment. Why the comparison to Fritz ? > > >I didn't bring fritz up. It came from the poster I responded to that made the >statement that fritz at 2M nodes per second might do better than DB. I pointed >out that DT at 2M nodes per second produced a true GM rating over a long series >of games vs GM players, with all games 40/2 or longer. We've not seen a >commercial program anywhere, much less Fritz specifically, do this. We have >seen lots of good results at action-chess speeds like game/30. However, fritz >at 2M would only be 4x faster. Somehow I don't get the sense, from watching >Fritz play, that 4x faster is going to help with the positional mistakes it >makes when playing strong humans. And against a GM, I don't think its wonder- >ful tactics are going to be enough to let it escape from making these mistakes >over and over. Of course, I could easily be wrong. Since there is no good >data to go on. This last statement of yours is my point. Since the data for Fritz is simply non existent why the statemment, "I haven't seen it win a game vs a GM at tournament time controls, much less perform at 2600+ over 24 consecutive games" (Bob Hyatt). > >So we are on opposite ends of the see-saw here. :) No I don't think so. Again what kind of data are you drawing from that makes you conclude that we are opposite ends of anything? >Why do you think Fritz >hasn't played many dozens of 40/2 games vs GM's to see how it would do? I >have an idea. It comes from the old saying "it is better to remain silent >and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." In this >case, "it is better to remain silent and be imagined to be a GM, than to play >a bunch of them and prove you are not." Sure that could be an explanation. But another guess could be that GM's are dodging the computers at 40/2. Recall the recent dodging of the GM who was supposed to have played Ferret. Ferret (Bruce Moreland) showed up at high noon with its guns ready for action. The GM scampered out of town! Still another guess is that GM's aren't much interested unless some substantial cash incentive is involved. >The programs are good. They are _not_ >anywhere close to DB however. DB ? I thought this was about Deep Thought. >And IMHO they are not anywhere near playing like >GM players either. But I must add a big *YET*, of course. They are getting >closer. And I still maintain that there is a *HUGE* jump from just becoming >a GM, to becoming a Kasparov-like GM. That's _many_ years away for computers >(general purpose computers anyway). I believe that in endgame play computers are in the IM zone but overall already play at GM level since the P200 days. I'm not sure now if we will ever get that precious 40/2 data vs GM's. I believe the GM's just aren't interested. Maybe they are thinking like this ... 1. If I beat this machine the money I will recieve is minimal . 2. If the beast beats me then the company's promotional slogans will increase sales thanks to me and my GM collegues losing to it. I'm not going to give them the satisfaction. > >Just an opinion, of course. I know, and it is a valid opinion. That you mention Deep Blue I should toss in my opinion also. I think Deep Blue is very strong not just because of its speed. I think especially its endgame play is given lots of consideration. This to me was somewhat confirmed by Kasparov's inability to knock it to the canvas in this traditionally weak area of computer play. Also confirmed somewhat by the interview posted here. Hsu mentioned that he was surprised by the weak endgame play of the commercials in that post. I drew from that statement that they spent lots of time tweaking endgame play.
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.