Author: blass uri
Date: 21:06:25 11/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 1999 at 18:45:57, Alexander Kure wrote: >On November 08, 1999 at 17:35:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 08, 1999 at 14:27:35, Alexander Kure wrote: >> >>>On November 07, 1999 at 21:09:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>[snipped] >>> >>>>Lang may have dominated the micro programs.. but he _never_ dominated computer >>>>chess. The 'program to beat' went like this: >>>> >>>>1960-1970 MacHack (Greenblatt) >>>>1970-1977 chess x.x (slate) >>>>1977-1979 chess x.x and belle (slate/thompson) >>>>1980-1982 Belle/Chess x.x/Cray Blitz (slate, thompson, hyatt) >>>>1983-1986 Cray Blitz >>>>1987-present deep thought/deep blue (Hsu) >>>> >>>>No other programs were close during those time periods, if you talk about >>>>'micro programs'. >>> >>>[snipped] >>> >>> >>>Hi Bob, >>> >>>I think that your last sentence neglects the fact that Fritz 3 running on a >>>Pentium 90 MhZ beat Deep Thought in Hongkong 1995. After this 'disgraceful' >>>event the micros took the lead over the mainframes. >>> >>>Greetings >>>Alex >> >> >>You _really_ believe that? They lost two whole games to other computer >>programs during a 12 year span of time, and they were 'taken over'??? >> >>I wish you had a chance to try on Cray Blitz at 7M nodes per second. You >>might discover that it is _not_ exactly a patzer. And it isn't close to >>deep blue either... based on games _actually_ played vs them. For every >>micro win over a 'mainframe' someone can dredge up 10 losses to mainframes. > > >I would be interested to see some of these losses of recent date ;-) > > >>I don't think the gap has closed at all... it has spread further, because the >>micro computers of today are _nowhere_ near the supercomputers of 5 years ago. >>In raw computing speed or any other measure... >> >>And the micros aren't even in the same rating pool with deep blue. > > >Maybe the fact that Micros did not have a chance to win more often than 2 whole >games (why only 2? which one besides Fritz vs. Deep Tought?) I remember that Deep thought lost to mephisto in 1989 during the last 12 >years was due to the lack of possibilities? After the Hong Kong fiasko Deep >Thought did not participate in any computer chess tournaments any longer (if I >am not mistaken, please correct me if I am wrong). IBM is responsible to the fact that they did not play against computers after the loss against Fritz. I read that after the match Deep thought tested their machine and they did more than 90% against Fritz3(p90) but they did not make the games public and the result is that many chess players are not sure if Deep thought was really better than Fritz3(p90). They can blame only themselves for the fact that they do not have respect from many chess players. They do everything in order not to get respect from chess players (for example the fact that they played with a bad version of deep blue Junior against Rebel and chess tiger) I do not understand their behaviour(even if I assume that they have something to hide and deep blue Junior is not good it was better for them not to play). Now, their only way to correct the bad impression is to play with the real thing against programs. If they do not do it they can blame only themselves if some people do not believe the claim of 38:2 of deep blue Junior against top programs 2 years ago. Uri
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.