Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:32:07 09/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2005 at 17:01:57, Peter Kappler wrote: >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. the point is that if you play in enough tournaments, you will get one "good" result for every "bad" result. This is a normal curve, and some finish on the right side of the bell curve, some finish on the left. Play enough games and the right and left average out to the mean... 25 isn't enough, but it is _way_ better than using a single 8 or 10 or 12 round tournament... > > >>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. It didn't favor DT. If you look back, you will see that some of these were short "matches". And that in most every case, the games were against humans that had seen Deep Thought play in previous events. These were mostly played in public tournaments around the northeast, but they did "get out of the area" some for large events... I don't doubt that some games were won for "computer shock" reasons. But then again, same goes for the Shredder, the Rebel, the Tiger, the Junior games. That happens. > >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. I would not disagree. I'm now 8X faster at least than DT2. But I am not as fast as DB1/2... > > >>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 0.01 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.