Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


Deep Blue vs todays (computer chess programs)

  • #1


    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


  • #2

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

  • #3

    Deep Blue was not a computer software, you are not well informed.


  • #4

    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. 

  • #5

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

  • #6

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

  • #7
    losingmove wrote:

    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.

  • #8

    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.

  • #9

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

  • #10

    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.

  • #11

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

  • #12

    WIthout a doubt, today's programs are FAR stronger than Deep Blue was. One can review the games against Kasparov that Deep Blue played using Houdini or Rybka and these programs will even spot improvements where Deep Blue made some positional and tactical inaccuracies.

    If you took Deep Blue from 1997 and had it face off against a Quad-core PC armed with Houdini 2.0 or Deep Rybka 4, Deep Blue would get dominated.

  • #13

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

  • #14

    can i play vs deep blue

  • #15
    cookiemonster161140 wrote:

    I thought deep blue was retired. 

    But just for fun let's say Deep Blue comes out of retirement and plays a match somewhere violating UN sanctions blah blah blah. 

    Deep Blue was designed to run on a supercomputer, not your average home PC. SO how would you conduct a match against today's commercially available engines? If you could run Deep Blue on a modern supercomputer today, it would easily crush Rybka or Houdini running on some quad core. PC. Easily. 

    Rybka and Houdini were designed specifically for PC's, and as such do not lend themselves to easy adaptation to being executed on a supercomputer, nor would they take full advantage of a supercomputer's processing power. 

    So harken back to the Fischer analogy, you have a match that will never take place. 

    The software Deep Blue used is very basic comapred to today's software. Even if you put deep blue on a modern supercomputer, I highly doubt it would crush Rybka or Houdini on a quad core. It also depends on the opening book as well. For example, I could arm Houdini with my custom-made opening book from ICCF games, and there's very little chance Deep Blue could muster anything more than a draw against it. ICCF games contain literally millions of hours of computing time, and I can tell you from personal experience that it is next to impossible to beat another ICCF player that is armed with such a database.

    But at any rate, the question was whether or not 'orginal' Deep Blue could do anything against a modern PC setup with top software. I can say with quite certainty it would lose and lose badly.

  • #16

    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:


    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.

  • #17
    cookiemonster161140 wrote:

    The evaluation function is important, but so is horizon effect. Today's supercomputers are several hundred times faster/more capable than the one which ran deep blue.

    Modern PC (or MAC) Engines maximize their potential by looking at only the best candidate moves up to that horizon. They are not capable of looking beyond the horizon. For them, the earth is flat. Meanwhile deep blue is capable of looking past the horizon in search of the absolute truth of a position.

    So assuming the GM-designed decision making process with deep blue is fairly competent, it's not a big stretch to say modern supercomputer would easily crush a home PC.

    Remember supercomputers cost billions of dollars to build. PC's can be had for about $300. Now I KNOW supercomputers are primarily govt contractor lowest bidder with costs that explode once the contract is signed but...they're still more powerful than some silly laptop.

    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.

  • #18

    Deep Blue wouldn't stand a chance.

  • #19
    cookiemonster161140 wrote:

    Like I was saying earlier, it's a match that will never take place. Like Fischer and Karpov.

    But computer horsepower does matter. If it didn't, government agencies wouldn't need supercomputers to test nuclear weapon designs. They could just run to Wal-Mart for the latest E-machine.

    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

  • #20

    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.

Online Now