Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 14:01:57 09/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2005 at 16:23:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 20, 2005 at 15:53:32, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>>>>(1) deep thought (deep blue's direct predecessor) was the first (and only) >>>>>program to produce a 2650+ performance result, playing games only against GM >>>>>players, at 40 moves in 2 hours only for the time control. It did this over 25 >>>>>consecutive games (intervening games could not be ignored if the result was >>>>>bad). No other program has yet accomplished this. >>>>> >>>> >>>>This was impressive 10 years ago, but today any commercial program (and probably >>>>a fair number of amateurs) could easily accomplish this feat running on ordinary >>>>hardware. >>>> >>> >>>Why haven't we seen it happen? Note I am not talking about the much faster time >>>controls we have seen more of lately. But real 40 moves in 2 hours. I don't >>>believe _any_ program today could pull this off on "ordinary" hardware. They >>>would be hard-pressed using very high-end (say quad opteron) systems... >>> >> >>There are so many examples it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just list a >>few. > >None of those address my point. If you play in N tournaments, and pick one, you >can get most any sort of TPR you want. If you play nothing but GM players, and >I do mean _no_ IM/FM/lower players, and you play 25 consecutive games, counting >each and every one, a 2650+ is really a daunting task. Shredder played in the Argentina event in 2003, 2004, and 2005. I couldn't find a TPR for the 2004 tourney, which is why I didn't post it. But, if you add up the games from all 4 events (it played in 2 events in 2004) it's something like 40 games, with a TPR above 2700. And the "GMs only" restriction of the Fredkin Prize doesn't make much sense to me. I suspect it's actually harder to get the 2650 result against a field of IMs/FMs. > >I won't say none of these programs can do that. I will say that none have >_done_ it yet. The fredkin prize was specifically structured to require 25 >games so that a single tournament could not be used, for the reason given above. > What's the point? Lets turn the tables and say that the "Fredkin II Prize" is for producing two 2750+ results in a 12-round human round robin. Then I can say that Deep Thought/Blue never did this. >So your examples, while certainly amazing enough, are not (yet) in the same >category as what a 1992 special-purpose piece of hardware did. We are now 15 >years beyond the point where DT2 was put together in 1990. > We'll just have to disagree on this. I think Shredder's results are probably more impressive. One thing that is never discussed is how totally unprepared those GMs must have been in the Fredkin games. I mean, imagine playing Deep Thought in 1988. You're a strong GM, but you've NEVER played a game against a computer. You probably don't even know the basic strengths/weaknesses of the computer. Think about how much this favored Deep Thought. Also, I have to say from looking at the old Deep Thought games, that it was CLEARLY weaker than todays micros. Just analyze a few games and this will become painfully obvious. >Secondly, while not being sure, I do not believe all the events given below are >40/2. Some certainly are, particularly those Ed was doing in his GM challenge. >But most tournaments have gone to faster time controls. And in one of the >listed cases, the games were mixed. Two slow, two faster, two faster still, >etc. I gave the link to Ed's page *ONLY* in reference to Chess Tiger's performance in Argentina 2001. I specifically did not mention the other events because they used mixed time controls. > Nobody doubts that computers can produce 3000+ ratings at blitz. They >have already done it and have been doing it for several years now.; > The results I gave were not blitz. -Peter > > >> >>Chess Tiger 14 - Argentina 2001 - 2788 performance rating (P3-866) >>http://www.rebel.nl/resu.htm >> >>Shredder 7 - Argentina 2003 - 2753 performance rating. >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1111 >> >>Shredder 9 - Argentina 2005 - 2758 performance rating. (P4-3500) >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=2538 >> >>And many more. (Note this article was written in 2003) >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1141 >> >> >>>>>(3) deep blue was 100x faster than deep thought 2, with more chess knowledge >>>>>than deep thought 2, and this is the box that beat Kasparov in a 6 game match. >>>>> >>>>>It is certainly possible that todays fastest computers, running today's best >>>>>commercial programs, are playing at an equal level when compared to deep blue, >>>>>although the Kramnik/etc matches were played at faster time controls generally, >>>>>than 40 moves in 2 hours. But at best the best micros of today are maybe as >>>>>strong as the 1997 deep blue system. Far from being far superior to it. Based >>>>>solely on the observations given above. Each of which can easily be verified >>>>>multiple ways... >>>> >>>> >>>>I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that DB '97 is an upper bound for >>>>the strength of todays micros. It certainly doesn't follow from the >>>>"observations given above". >>>> >>> >>> >>>The GM results of 2M nodes per seconds, vs the DB hardware 100X faster. What PC >>>today could do better than a 2650 performance against GMs at 40/2??? >>> >> >>Every single commercial and probably at least the top 5 amateurs. >> >>-Peter > > >This is speculation. Since it has _not_ been done yet. My point. DT did it 13 >years ago. And its "big brother" was 100X faster than that. Do you _really_ >think it was a patzer??? Or something pretty remarkable for its time (or for >any time, really)?
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.