Author: Derek Mauro
Date: 16:07:33 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 15:43:32, Robert Hyatt 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. > >Based on what? Top programs of today _still_ seem to be unable to understand >simple chess concepts like the pawn majority we have been discussing in another >thread. I discovered, by bits and pieces, some of the knowledge in deep >thought, and it was not "small" at all. Everyone assumes that the micros are >much smarter... and that us old supercomputer guys simply depended on raw speed >to win games. If you look at the game Cray Blitz vs Joe Sentef, from 1981, >you will find a position that many programs today will blow, and that programs >of 5 years ago would totally blow (bishop + wrong rook pawn ending knowledge). >We weren't "fast and dumb" at all. Neither was DT, DB or DB2. Fast, yes. But >definitely not "dumb". The "intelligence" of todays programs is mostly myth >brought on by fast hardware that searches deep enough to cover for some of the >positional weakness the programs have. If DB was "smarter" than today's programs (and I believe you that it was), and you consider today's programs not to be super-intelligent, why is it that we haven't been able to make smarter programs? It makes perfect sense that in 4 years we should have made more progress. Did the DB guys just know a hell of a lot more than we have figured out, or is it that because of some hardware issue we just can't implement everything, or something else? > > > >> >>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. > >There is nothing that says you must use forward-pruning methods to write a >strong program. Nothing at all. DT had repetition problems in the chess >hardware, yes. But in _spite_ of that it played like a super-GM. DB and DB2 >had no such problems. > > >> >>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.