Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:34:53 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 04:06:14, Mark Young wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 01:29:15, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 23:15:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 2001 at 16:35:15, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>> >>>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:43:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>From the above statement it seems that no significative advancements were made >>>>in computer chess since then... are you sure that is a realistic conclusion ? >>>> >>>>with best regards. >>> >>> >>>Since DT's time? I would say that is realistic. There have been small >>>qualitative improvements in the micro programs, to be sure. But things that >>>I was doing in 1992 are _still_ not done in many programs. The pawn majority >>>discussion is just one example. >> >>I saw a lot of gaes of deep thought and I never saw a position when this was >>relevant for the game so I think that this knowledge is not the important >>knowledge and the important knowledge is how to play the middlegame. >> >>I also checked some games of Deep thought and found that in the tactical >>positions Deep fritz is simply better and there are cases when it can avoid the >>blunders of deep thought. > >playing over the games of Deep Thought I drew the same conclusions, my guess any >top program today on a PIII 800 or better would win a match against Deep >Thought, Hitech, etc. Today micros are that good in my judgement playing over >the old game files of the past "super computers". > >> >>I do not talk only about the repetition bug. >> >>I saw good moves of deep thought that programs of 1992 could not find but I do >>not know about good moves of deep thought that Deep Fritz cannot find(I did not >>analyze all games so there may be but the fact that I found only blunders of >>deep thought and not impressive moves of deep thought from Deep fritz's point of >>view suggest that Deep thought was not strong). >> >>I saw cases when Deep Fritz can avoid blunders of Deep thought and I do not mean >>only to positional blunders but also to tactical blunders when Deep Fritz like >>the move of Deep thought after few seconds or few minutes but changes it's mind >>leter when the time of finding the right move or the time of failing law is >>enough to avoid the blunder at tournament time control. >> >>> >>>I've said this _many_ times in the past... I don't believe there have been >>>more than a small number of "revolutionary" ideas in computer chess in the last >>>35 years. Hashing was certainly one. Perhaps null-move another although it >>>is not clear that you must use null-move to be competitive as Rebel shows (and >>>the DT/DB/DB2 machines as well). Iterative deepening with full-width search >>>is another. Extensions are collectively another one, some more-so than others. >>>Perhaps EGTBs is the most recent one. Everything else has been slow, methodical >>>progress, something many won't like to hear. Part of the progress has been due >>>to incremental changes to chess engines/evaluations/etc, part has been due to >>>the hardware speed advances. Probably more of the latter than the former, if >>>the truth is known... >> >>I think that advances in software from Genius2 to Deep Fritz is more than 200 >>elo at tournament time control. > >I have played matches with today’s programs with the programs of 10 years ago >for fun; mismatch is an understatement in describing the outcome for the older >generation programs. I believe that 10 years ago there was clearly one program that was above the rest(Genius). I am not sure if it was Genius1 oor Genius2 at that time. I know it was not Genius3 because genius3 is from 1994. Did you use genius in your matches? 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.