Author: Mark Young
Date: 13:39:09 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 16:22:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 16:16:06, Mark Young wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 15:36:54, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:21:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 29, 2001 at 14:41:48, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 14:03:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 13:52:33, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 12:52:15, Roy Eassa wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This sentence DOES say a lot, doesn't it: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"By the summer of 1990--by which time three of the original Deep Thought team >>>>>>>>had joined IBM--Deep Thought had achieved a 50 percent score in 10 games played >>>>>>>>under tournament conditions against grandmasters and an 86 percent score in 14 >>>>>>>>games against international masters." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That was 7 years before, and many-fold slower hardware (and much weaker >>>>>>>>software, no doubt), than what played Kasparov in 1997. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No >>>>>>>This sentence tells me nothing new. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I know that humans at that time did not know how to play against computers like >>>>>>>they know today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Today programs got clearly better results than deep thought >>>>>>>and there is more than one case when they got >2700 performance inspite of >>>>>>>the fact that the opponents could buy the program they played against them >>>>>>>something that Deep thought's opponents could not do. >>>>>> >>>>>>Deep thought produced a rating of 2655 over 25 consecutive games against a >>>>>>variety of opponents. None of them were "inexperienced" in playing against >>>>>>computers. Byrne. Larson. Browne. You-name-it. That argument doesn't hold >>>>>>up under close scrutiny. >>>>> >>>>>In some ways, it appears that the GMs of today are >>>>>>prepared far worse than the GMs of 1992 were prepared to play computers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don?t see how GM?s of today are less prepared to play computers. Anyone of >>>>>them can and has played computer programs at home stronger then the programs of >>>>>the early 1990?s. >>>> >>>>I am basing that on the games I have seen, plus the important detail that in >>>>1992, strong GM players at the US Open, the World Open, and other events >>>>(particularly those in the northeast US) knew they would be facing Hitech, >>>>Deep Thought, and at times, Belle and others. Since 1995 this has not been >>>>the case as it is nearly impossible to find a tournament in the US that will >>>>allow a computer to compete. If they aren't going to face the machines, they >>>>aren't going to study them. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don?t think preparation is the problem. It is the strength of the programs of >>>>>today. It seems if you are not in the top 100 of the Fide list your chances of >>>>>besting the better programs is not very good. >>>>> >>>>>It seems clear that the programs of today are stronger then Deep Thought of 1992 >>>>>that produced a rating of 2655 playing against "Byrne. Larson. Browne. >>>>>You-name-it". Do you agree with this? >>>> >>>> >>>>No I don't. I would agree that probably they programs of today are in the >>>>same league with Deep Thought of 1992, maybe. At least on the 8-way boxes. >>>>Their NPS speed would be similar. Deep Thought wasn't known to be an incredibly >>>>"smart" program, neither are today's programs. >>> >>> >>>I consider the top programs of today as clearly smarter than Deep thought. >>> >>>Deep thought had also a problem in the repetition detection and I believe that >>>the search algorithm of the top programs of today is superior because Deep >>>thought did not use null move or other pruning methods. >> >>I agree, and there are many games to play over that show todays programs are >>much smarter and faster then Deep Thought of 1992. Even without a 8-way box. To >>me it is clear that preparation is not the problem, as any GM can play much >>stronger programs then Deep Thought, Hitech, Etc. of the 1980's and early >>1990's. And it has already been suggested as fact all programs have the same >>fundamental weaknesses. So playing any top program or studying any old Deep >>Thought games should be the only preparation needed. As this is the only prep >>the early GM's had when facing Deep Thought. >> >>BTW. I don't understand how we take as fact that "Byrne. Larson. Browne. >>You-name-it" prepared for their games with computers, but any of today's GM's >>that know their playing computers and also lose don't prepare for their games. >> >>How does Bob and other know what kind of preparation past or present GM's do >>when they know they are facing a computer program. > >Perhaps we ask? I know several that will answer. Let ask, GM Leko, GM Huebner, GM Pablo Ricardi, GM Andres Rodriguez, GM Oscar Panno, GM Alejandro Hoffman, for starters. BTW: What kind of preparations did GM Byrne, GM Larson, and GM Browne do to prepare for Deep Thought since you already know. > > > >> >>If Fritz 7 does happen to win its match with GM Kramnik we better not here one >>word about GM Kramnik not being prepared for the match, as we heard with the >>Deep Fritz Vs GM Huebner match, Chess Tigers great win in Argentine, and Deep >>Junior's 2700+ TPR at Dortmund Etc. >> >>> >>>Uri
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.