Deep Blue vs todays (computer chess programs)

hello everyone, I am just curious, :) just want to ask if the computer chess program called Deep Blue who defeated Kasparov way back 1996 and 1997. Do you think this computer software can match against todays top computer softwares like Fritz and Shredder?

thank you

I think it would depend on time setting, and engine parameters, but it would hold good against them i suppose :)

Deep Blue was not running on a commercial processor. If I remember it right, the machine weighed more than Kasparov? All things considered, the results will depend on the hardware backing the software. It's not a fair comparison if Fritz is just running on hardware the size of a cigar box. 

Thanks for the information guys, I thought Deep Blue is a commercial software too :) 

What's the go with computers vs humans? Do computers now routinely beat any and all humans?

Oh quite. As I understand it the hardest part about designing a chess program to play with humans these days is making it weak enough to beat.

I personally have never found a playing setting that wasn't either trouncing me or making ridiculous errors. Computers do not seem capable of the kind strategic misconceptions that arise in actual games.

what would have the rating of Deepblue if it existed now with the same features?

Also, Deep blue lost to Kasparov in 1996 4 to 2.  In 1997 it won 3.5 to 2.5

Kasparov has a plus score agaisnt deep blue, 4 wins, 5 draws, and 3 losses.

Do you think today's Deep Fritz and Deep Shredder are better than IBM's Deep Blue?

I agree sir firebrand, even grandmasters are using computers to enhance their skills.

can i play vs deep blue

The strength of an engine depends primarily upon it's positional evaluation function.  A good evaluation function means the engine can be effective with much lower CPU strength.  Today's engines are VERY good.  If you watch the Deep Thought (the first match) documentary, you will see some fundamental flaws in the way the programmers think.

Go to 3:50 of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU1_fE6B2vk

Instead of trying to make the best possible positional evaluation, he's throwing more and more processing power at the problem as if he has all the secrets to chess solved and the computer just isn't searching deep enough.  That ofcourse wasn't true. Today proves that you don't need to see 1 billion positions per second to have truly great engines and that the evaluation function itself is where strength comes from.

Today's engines will defeat Deep Thought and Deep Blue quite handidly on less powerful hardware.

But have thought maybe Deep Blues evaluation function is simply inferior to todays programs?  That is what matters the most.  If modern engines can better evaluate a position then it does not matter if they can't calculate billions of positions per second and that is what im saying.  Todays engines are simply programmed better and no amount of CPU power, then or today will help Deep Blue.

Deep Blue wouldn't stand a chance.

Ofcourse CPU power matters, if ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL!!! Deep Blue and Rybka are entirely different engines!  If Rybka is simply programmed better to understand chess than Deep Blue, then Deep Blue can have all the processing power in the world, it can't be saved.  Now if Rybka on a home PC is up against Rybka on a supercomputer, ofcourse the supercomputer Rybka would win.

So silly to have to explain

I find it perculiar that people keep mentioning "Fritz" as if it was the top choice. 

Rybka and Houdini have dominated the top list the last 4 years.

Yes maybe, but they are all ultra strong, so who cares in the end?  Rybka, Houdini, Shredder, Fritz, Junior, Stockfish, Critter... the list goes on, they are all giants and will guide their masters

It is certainly true that it doesn't matter much (anything) for a player like myself, but the difference can be hugh in endgames. Even I have seen Houdini solve positions where Fritz and several other engines commit errors. I am not talking about table bases here. Only engine judgment.

Deep Blue was a supercomputer designed to beat Gary Kasparov.  Joel Benjamin and other GMs helped the IBM team program it just for that task.  The hardware had 30 CPUs which in turn each had 16 dedicated chess engine chips.  In other words there were a total of 510 processing chips all designed to beat one human being.  It was like building a steam shovel to defeat one person in a digging contest.  

What's amazing is not that the computer won overall, but that it didn't win everytime.  GK beat it in the very first game and the final score of the match was only 3.5 to 2.5.   However IBM  got what it wanted which was the headline of building the first computer to beat a world chess champion.  For that reason, I still believe Kasparov should have negotiated for more money because for that kind of PR IBM had to play Kasparov, but he did not have to play them.  Worse IBM stacked the deck in their favor.  Unlike GK's or any other human champion's games DB's prior games could not be studied as they were not published by IBM. And when GK ask for a rematch IBM not only declined, but dismantled DB. As a result we will never really know how well DB would do against GK in a rematch , or against another world champion or for that matter even today's chess programs.