Can an 80s computer beat a new one at Chess?! Amiga 🆚 Mac ♟🕹️ 1987 🆚 2020

Can an 80s computer beat a new one at Chess?! Amiga 🆚 Mac ♟🕹️ 1987 🆚 2020

What? I was not expecting that!
Wow. WOW. Yeah. Oh hello, chip dippers. Welcome to
Retro Recipes now. I had a lot of fun with that recent video.
Which is faster Commodore 64 or a MacBook Pro? and the other
day we were watching one of our favorite movies War Games for about the 64th time And of course it has that famous line in there
[Robotic Voice] So then I thought what if we ignored speed
and instead looked at A.I. artificial intelligence yeah, you’ve got a lot of that now, of course
in 1997 IBM’s deep blue computer famously beat
Garry Kasparov at chess The first time a computer had ever beaten
a champion or a dog Unfortunately, Garry was unavailable for my
little rematch video, but what if we could pit a 1987 Commodore Amiga against a modern computer.
Say a MacBook Well… It should be possible to take the moves from
one computer and type them into the other computer. That computer will think it’s the human that
thought up that move, when actually they came from the other machine. In fact, I think it’s gonna be so interesting
that for once chess won’t make you board Get it? Chess board [laughs] King of Comedy! Welcome to Retro Recipes So we’ll get to the big match in just a moment.
But first what about that IBM Deep Blue computer? Well, Kasparov had beaten it 4-2 in 1996, but Deep Blue asked for a rematch. Well,
I mean it didn’t ask itself, IBM did it’s not that smart. Deep Blue was then heavily upgraded and played
Kasparov again in May 1997 Deep Blue won by one game, becoming the
first computer system to defeat a reigning World Chess Champion. Incredibly Kasparov then allegedly accused
IBM of cheating and demanded a rematch. IBM refused and dismantled Deep Blue. It’s not clear why they did that, but I don’t
think it cheated. Even though it foiled the Turing Test, a measure
of whether a human can tell it’s playing a computer or not. It wasn’t really intelligent, not like the
chess players are. Like all chess AI engines it was just following programming. Here’s how computers did it back then … Simply,
the computer progresses down the branches of a thought tree called Minimax. Each branch represents possible future moves
by both sides. It scores each branch and then uses the opening
move of the highest-scoring branch. Now, I mentioned War Games did you know Matthew
Broderick used a modified in 1975 IMSAI 8080 running at a WOPRing 2 megahertz. But you don’t need to use your modem to dial
up to the government anymore to play chess. Chess games are everywhere now, even a Tesla can play your at chess while you
wait at the traffic lights and I just noticed this little WarGames Easter
egg in the Tesla. One of the skill levels is called Joshua,
the human name given to the War Games computer. Play my pawn to there… Hey… Oh c’mon Joshua! Play my Knight to there. Yes! Oh, for goodness sake! You stupid piece
of shh… [Garbage truck sounds] Uh, I was gonna say sheet metal. But the limiting factor even for today’s cars,
uh computers, is that there are 10 ^ 123 possible moves in a chess game. That’s nearly twice the number of atoms in
the universe. As they say in America [very British accent:] “Ain’t not nobody’s
got time for that!” Or something… So the computer essentially
only thinks as deep as three moves ahead. AKA Three Ply like Loo Roll. [Door creaking] [Ladyfractic]: Do
you mean toilet paper? Hey get out of my voiceover booth! [door closing] But anyway, Since Deep Blue or the 1987 Commodore Amiga
a couple of key things have advanced. One, processor speed. This means the computer can explore perhaps
two thousand more branches in the same amount of time. Number two, the search is more efficient today
ignoring predictably unuseful branches. The Amiga would still waste time looking them.
And other things, like better tuned algorithms learned by playing with itself [cough cough] Well, and in theory the Mac will slaughter
the Amiga because it’s faster and it’s AI is smarter and I won’t demand a rematch like Kasp… Karp… Okay, you’re probably wondering why I keep pretending to mispronounce his name Well me and my friend Allyfractic genuinely had trouble with his name and back in 1989 I thought it’d be fun to phone a software shop and mix up Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov When asking them for Kasparov’s Computer game Yes you could literally beat him at his own game Poor guy! But to try to make it super fair for this
gambit, we’ll play itat least three games and each time with different programs We should also try to match the Elo skill
rating of each AI named after Hungarian-American physics professor Arpad Elo. Elo is basically a rating that goes from senior
master right down to class J. I think I’m somewhere near W. So to start with we’ll play the stock chess
app that comes with the Mac versus Battle Chess on the Amiga both around the level of the Class B or C
player. But don’t worry logic would dictate that the
Mac would still win because it could get more thinking done in
the same amount of time. Even with the same elo rating. Well, well… I won’t give you any spoilers just stay tuned. And then we’ll move up to Real Chess 3D, which
has the highest star rating on the App star, store, I mean, vs. Chessmaster 2000 on the Miggy and we’ll
finish with HIARCS Chess Explorer. Which Kaspa… That guy that chess guy said was much better
positionally than Deep Blue. Wow… And we’ll play that against Sargon III on
the Amiga which has beaten a chess master who was rated at 2200 but there would be unfair so we’ll try
to set each game to comparable skill levels and well on its highest skill level the Amiga
will take four days to move one chess piece. Now socially an average chess game of 40 moves
would take it nearly six months to complete. So you’ll forgive me for not using a Commodore
64 or an Amstrad PCW. So we’ll set a time limit of 5 minutes per
move on both sides and now that you’ve got all that info. There’s
only one thing left… How about a nice game of chess? [music] And we are joined by Ladyfractic. Ladyfractic. So you are the aluminium corner again? Ah rose gold aluminium. You, you are the rose
gold corner again that’s easier to spell in British and I’m on the Amiga gonna
be playing Battle Chess, everybody’s favorite chess game. Ladyfractic,
I don’t think has seen it. So let’s boot it up! We’ve hit our first problem with the Mac because
it has to download an update. Bless you or shall I say Chess you? [laughs] While that’s downloading, I’m just going to
load up Battle Chess and assisting us with the adjudication is
Puppyfractic, that’s you right? Yeah. I know… [Ladyfractic]: She’s wishing you good luck [laughs] She never does this… What are you doing? Okay, so we got both the
games cued up and three quick things you need to know The Mac is always gonna be playing from the
top of the board down with the black pieces with the Amiga playing from the bottom of
the board up and I will keep skipping ahead during the waiting phases But you can still check how much time has
elapsed using this handy here clock. Yeah. We have a lot of options here. [flapping] [Ladyfractic] Oh, they’re flapping! [Perifractic]
Yes, the angels bringing us the options. [flapping] So you’re just gonna mirror that on the Mac
and now the Mac plays it’s turn. [Mac LOUDLY]: Pawn d7 to d5. Surprise! Okay, so as long as I don’t get the wrong
piece we should be able to now have both computers playing one another. Pawn E7 to E5. It’s pretty quick isn’t it? The
Amiga? Yeah. D5 takes C4. Uh-huh. So now the Amiga is going
to think I’m really smart. Are you ready for this? Watch this… And now the Amiga gives its response. And for efficiency, I won’t keep showing you
the duplicate moves on the other machine unless they have really interesting animations [Computer] Queen D8 takes D1. [Perifractic]
Ahh… Check! Dissapointing. [Ladyfractic] Oh! She’s got
quite a shimmy. [Perifractic] Sassy pants. [Ladyfractic] That’s a way to do it. [Perifractic]
I wasn’t expecting that. King takes Queen. [Ladyfractic] Wait… Oh!
[Perifractic] Why they hugging? [Ladyfractic] What? Ahh that was violent. Should I laugh at that? [Ladyfractic] That’s
definitely dated. It’s very Okay [Ladyfractic] Okay much less violent
[Perifractic] So civilized. [computer] Knight D8 to C6. So Knights, I’ll give you a little lesson in chess and
Knights can only move in an L shape and they’re the only piece that can jump over other pieces. That’s how I was able to get from behind those
pawns. This horsey [horse]: [snorting] That’s my horse, all right. Come on Knight. This
one doesn’t jump. He doesn’t have a horse. I swear it’s like “Pardon me. Pardon me”.
[Perifractic] Amiga is thinking. Bishop C8 to F5. Bishops can only move diagonally. See look it’s thinking now. [Perifractic]
It’s actually Bruce Forsyth! [computer] Castle Queenside. [Perifractic]
Oh So the castle can only go in straight lines.
Otherwise known as the Rook and it’s the only piece that can switch. [music] [computer] D8 to D7 [Perifractic] I thought
the Mac would have slaughtered the Amiga by now, but they’re actually having an involved, pretty good game of chess. All right. My little pawn has gone forward
to. [Ladyfractic, American accent] Pawn [Perifractic] Pawn. Right? [Ladyfractic] Pawn. [American computer] Pawn F7 to F6. [Perifractic] She’s American
she’s cheating. Is it thinking? [Ladyfractic] No, that was your move. [Perifractic] Oh, I so
busy thinking about pawn… [computer] Pawn G7 takes F6. [Ladyfractic]
Pawn-Chi [Perifractic] Pawn cheese? [laughs] Bishop’s scared. E6 to E7 [computer] Pawn C7 to C6. [Ladyfractic] Don’t
you think it’s taking a little bit longer now. [Perifractic] Yes, it’s It”s still limiting itself to about 20 seconds.
[computer] Bishop F5 takes G4 [fighting] [Ladyfractic, Cockney accent] That’s
not very ladylike.[Perifractic] [laughs] We’re thinking? What if the pawn actually beat the Bishop. It sounds like the beginning of a joke. [computer]
Knight G8 takes F6. [Ladyfractic] Let’s see how a Knight assaults Bishop. [computer]:
[cries] Off with his head! [laughs] [Ladyfractic] okayyy [Perifractic] Sad. Thank goodness for that [computer] Pawn C6 takes D5. [computer] [cries] He hit him in the crotch! [Perifractic] Good knight! Wait. Oh, so I got Check. [Ladyfractic] What? [computer] King C8 to B8. I mean that’s kind of amazing that even if
the Amiga loses the Amiga still got Check against the Mac. The Mac got it much sooner. [Perifractic]
yeah the Mac got it straight away. [Ladyfractic] But the Amiga has been able to elude it the whole time. [computer] D7 to D5 [Perifractic] Yeah Bishop G4 to F3 D5 takes a F4 PCB Way are absolutely terrible at making
chess boards, but if you need some PCBs, we wecommend … we wecommend [Ladyfractic] Okay, Elmer Fudd. [Perifractic]
[laughs] PCB Wayyyy. [Ladyfractic] because as we all know PCB stands for printed
circu– [Perifractic] Playing chess boards You ruined it. I did, I did. If only you could take it back.
Yeah. Okay. Let’s see what you got now Did you see how fast she responded she was “I’m gonna murder you'” D6 to B4 Check. Oh It’s exposed the rook at the top of the board By getting out of the way the rook could now
travel straight down and take the king Actually, very educational for someone like
me that does not play chess Yeah would not have. Reminded me of some techniques
[computer] Knight F6 takes D5 [Perifractic] but not that one So how far can the King move? The King can
only move one space at a time. I’m seeing the end of the game. Yeah. We’ll
see That’s an interesting move I don’t know as
there was much I Mean, there’s thought behind all of this.
I don’t know what I would have achieved D5 to E3 Checkmate! [Boooo] Let’s move it on here See if the Amiga agrees – what if the Amiga found a way out of it. [Ladyfractic] Then I’d be very impressed. So now it’s calculating what its options are. What? [Perifractic] It’s taking the King. [Ladyfractic]
it finishes the game Off with his crown I don’t remember that. Okay. Is your King
gonna get naked. No. I guess he’s already naked. Yes, all I can see is his wood Well, there you go, so probably not huge surprise
the Mac beat the Amiga and Took his clothes off But it took a lot longer than I thought These are both set to default basic Levels and the Amiga even got check against
the Mac at one point. Anyway, well, I think all we can do move on to two different games To see if with more intelligent games on both
sides we get a better result So now we’ve got Real Chess 3D vs. the Chess
Master Mm, and as the graphics aren’t quite so interesting,
although they’re still pretty beautiful I think on the Amiga to speed things along
I’m gonna mute the commentary and just show each individual move from each machine So now over to the Amiga for the opening move [Amiga] I am the chess master. Pretty sex huh? [Ladyfractic] Not bad, looks almost just like this. [Amiga] Check mate, you lose. [Perifractic] Wait, the Amiga?! Yeah We just answered the question can Amiga beat
a modern-day Mac at chess Yes. Yeah, I was not expecting that Wow Wow, we’re gonna start again, we’ll move up
the difficulty just see what happens the macs on normal Yeah, and this is going up to the Amiga’s going
up so we should put this up to number four This can take 60 minutes per move Now chess master had this great feature I have
to show you Called if the boss wanders by [laughs] Guess what this does? Um I’m gonna guess that it flips it to like an
Excel spreadsheet or something. Yep. How did you know? But you have to be working for a real estate
company If you use this. There’s even an option
to show it thinking down that thought tree although unfortunately, it obscures the board Still fascinating to see Right back to Chess? [R2-C4 whistles] Now this stage we’re running out of daylight So we’re going to move the Amiga back to level
one as it seems to be doing fairly well If your Pawn gets to the end it becomes a
Queen oh You are a big boo big big Big doodoo booboo. The Queen is going to F
him up. She gon kill you. Oh, is he trying to get
multiple queens are you kidding? Good tactics Amiga Another queen, oh we’re getting in position
check. Mate in one. Oh Checkmate you lose Don’t say thank God you lost an hour later.
I’m ready to lose. So it is now 2 games 2 to 1 to the Amiga. On default settings or medium on this program on this
program Wow Now chess matches are usually either two four
or six games – with no tie breaker – So let’s do one really quick final game.
The incredible HIARCS Chess Explorer vs. Sargon III on the Amiga and Will set HIARCS ELO rating to 2200 to match
Sargon So it’s interesting to see on the Mac it’s given each one a school graph of what’s the most likely to get the highest score This is so fast, it’s insane this time to
really simplify things Let’s just watch all the moves on one screen.
Just remember Amigas white Mac is black So now I think it’s run out of opening moves
and the database is now using the AI. So it’s scanning down the tree and Looking at all the potential moves and just
above that you’ll see it’s giving the scores. [computer] Check mate! [applause] We’ve got 2 little windows. checkmate I lose Checkmate you lost. That was, that was uh yeah that was a good
game. I can’t deny that I wanted the Amiga to win. But I suppose that would’ve been ridiculous
if the Amiga won this whole match Four games that we’ve played the final score
is 2 games the Amiga two games the Mac which
means it’s a draw. But I’m amazed you know if the Mac is two
thousand times faster than the Amiga the Amiga would have
got a lot less thinking done. Pretty stunning that it managed to win two games out of four Now sure the obvious answer of why it won
is that chess 3d wasn’t as skilled as we thought though We did match the skill levels even moving the
Amiga down to easy at one point and it still won But I do have another theory – in our other
video I explored Wirth’s law and you’ve heard of Moore’s law now I don’t think those are happening here But what about a new law – that AI trained only
with modern data or self play can still be Bamboozled by old data – a sort of AI tunnel
vision, I guess what I mean Is that what if the Amiga is kind of like
the wise old man playing chess in the park? Using dated techniques that the teenage champion
didn’t expect? of course, that’s kind of a romanticized view It may not be true at all but if you’re a chess expert – a chesxpert I’d love to hear your conclusion of why a
2000 times slower computer can still achieve a draw. Tell you one thing that I can’t conclude, chess
was a lot more fun back in the Amiga days He hit him in the crotch! as always thanks for watching subscribe below
and Cheerio. Do you want a nice game of global thermonuclear
war? Yes. [Lady] Battle Chess. Yes. Sorry I’ve got Harry Potter
[Peri] Hairy Potter? Do you say Hairy Potter. That’s his name.
Do it again? [Lady] Harry Potter. [Peri] Say Harry. [Lady] Harry [Peri] say Prince Harry [Lady]
Prince Harry [Peri laughs] Prince Hairy. Harry in American is hairy.
[Lady] Oh because you pronounce the “I” quite– [Peri] There’s no I to pronounce [Lady] There’s no I in hair? [Peri] Hay-ire [laughs] That’s a good southern accent. Hay-ire!

100 thoughts on “Can an 80s computer beat a new one at Chess?! Amiga 🆚 Mac ♟🕹️ 1987 🆚 2020

  1. 🗨️ Start a conversation not a fire. This happy corner of the world was born from childhood nostalgia. Comment with kindness. Thank you 🙂
    🆕 Check out the new rematch with both apps at top skill levels!:
    1. "This isn't about computers it's about A.I., or it's only a test of speed, etc." I explain this at 4:23. You gotta watch the video before commenting on the video 😉
    2. I realize 10^123 is more than double the atoms in the universe. I was trying to say the power of figure is double but it came out badly 🤦‍♂️FML
    3. When we said that move was dated what we saw on our smaller CRT TV was the King going in for a cuddle then bludgeoning the Queen to death. Showing "domestic violence" as a "joke" in video games doesn't happen today and is what we thought was "dated". BUT, what we didn't see at the time was her pulling a knife. Bad Queen! So it was actually self defense!
    – What's your theory on the final result? Low Mac Elo? Fluke? Peri's law? 😉 Comment below!

  2. Theory from someone who works in ecommerce UX, and a rookie chessplayer:

    The Mac seeks to lose half the time at any given difficulty level to encourage engagement from a larger pool of users.

    Regardless, the Amiga wins on charisma.

  3. The short answer is that the amiga didnt win. Chess matches are timed, each side has a predetermined amount of time to make its move, and chess programs which seek to replicate an ELO are ignoring this boundary. That is, it doesnt matter if the amiga is 2000 times slower than the mac if the amiga is taking 2000 times longer to make a move. With the elo restrictions this is very possible. The mac could be finishing its search in under your screens refresh rate. If both were given the same overall time restriction the mac would surely win

  4. Another way to think of these results are statistically. Given no time limits and a target ELO the machines are not really producing a deterministic result(even if it might replicate given the same settings and hardware) but rather a random result that is dependent on the accuracy of the ELO simulation. If two players have the same ELO then the expected long term win rate of these players against each other is 50%. Setting the amiga and mac to the same ELO, if both simulations are good, should result in a 50% win rate for each side. So your results are not inconsistent with the idea that the computers have a good ELO simulation. Though… elo should decline over the years as its a comparative statistic and players tend to get better. So a 1600 player in 1980 is unlikely to be a 1600 player in 2020 unless they improve in their skill. So what you might have found is that chess 3D has a poor ELO simulation or is designed to lose

  5. I don't think the age of the device or program is really a factor, It's more down to the machine learning algorithm and how well it was tweaked. e.g. Take this little genetic algorithm I wrote for my Comp Sci Masters Degree, it's a bit slow as it's JavaScript:

    This is a fairly common computer science problem called the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP), the salesman has to visit each city once and end up back the the start city, you have to try and calculate the shortest possible route.
    If you set the cities to 35 and start the algorithm, it may end up with a good result, but press retry a few times and you will get some terrible results. Now up the population to 1000, the generations to 100 and the annealing to 50, you will get better results using exactly the same algorithm, it's just tweaked a little.

    By the way, a genetic algorithm sounds complex, it isn't really:
    1.Make a bunch of guesses (The total guesses is the population).
    2. Choose the top few guesses and keep them (parents).
    3. Mix the top few guesses together to produce new guesses (children), this should keep parts of the good guesses mixed with other parts of good guesses.
    4. Fill the rest of the population with new random guesses.
    5. Rinse and repeat.

    A lot of game AI use this method in path finding!

  6. Gary got annoyed with the way the IBM team was running Deep Blue. They did not tell Gary that they were changing the program after each game. Gary expected to learn its behavior over time and it kept changing.

    I think Gary had a reasonable complaint as he was NOT competing against set a machine.

    Ethelred Hardrede

  7. Was about to comment that you should have been using Chessmaster then saw you did. It wasn't a draw – if you had kept playing with Chessmaster it would have continued to kick her ass. Great to see it beat the Mac.

  8. "That computer will think it's a human that thought up that move when actually it came from the other machine". Will it think that? So will it be surprised how the quality of moves has suddenly increased. I thought chess programs were just mathematical algorithms, I didn't realise they had thoughts about the origin and source of the moves. Do they have moods too?

  9. Well in all reality the reason why they tied in the end is because they were all set to to combat at the same elo. Processing power has absolutely nothing to do with playing the game except to process potential moves faster.

  10. I think pitting two same elo ais against each other is a bad way of answering your title question. a better would be pitting the best the 80s had to offer (that is available at least) against the best available now.

  11. I feel sorry for the kid who got Sargon III for their birthday. That UI looks so dull it's frankly impossible for it to be duller!

  12. Mac is for ,,not so wise" people. Seriously… come on guys, we live in 21st century. One Laptop cost 500$ max! One Smartphone cost 200 $ max.

  13. I used to beat the pants off of Sargon 2 on the Commodore 64, but I can't touch Stockfish 10 on my Dell laptop with Windows 10. Chess programs are getting better every year and computers are getting faster, so the newer setups will almost always beat the older ones. The program on your Mac must not be very good if it can't beat the Amiga. Try using the computer program on, on a new Dell computer with an Inspiron 3 or 5 chip in it, and change the settings to Stockfish 10, depth 22. I guarantee you that it will beat any computer you have. The only program it can't beat is Google's Alpha Zero, which is not available to the public.

  14. The animations were cute on Battle Chess, but I'd never play a serious game on it. It's too hard to analyze the positions, since they don't look like real chess pieces. By the way, your Battle Chess didn't play anywhere near a 2200 rating. More like 1400-1500. It made several mistakes. I could easily beat it and I'm an 1800 player.

  15. Came for the content, stayed for the content and all of a sudden a beautiful woman with an awesome personality shows up. all in all a good day.

  16. Not even watched the video yet, my money is on Amiga. Still got a working one in my garage I think. Chessmaster 2000 was scary AF back then.

    Edit: Yup, Chessmaster 2000…. Called it….. Interesting fact, Everyone was SO amazed when Rocket League came out a few years ago…. Yet It was done back in 1991 on Tandy ( I had one of those too) but I also think it came out on the Amiga I had… called Wild Wheels…

  17. This guy appears to have a very rudimentary understanding of chess, yet asserts that he doesn't believe that IBM cheated in the second match. How could you possibly know? Your understanding isn't even close enough to distinguish "human moves" from "computer moves", which is what Kasparov was asserting. Deep Blue made a clear "human move" in a certain position – a move which turned out to be clearly inferior upon further analysis and a move that a computer would have calculated as inferior, but a human GM would have reasoned that another human would find the correct line of play difficult to determine – and threw Kasparov off. Kasparov asked immediately after the game for a printout of the computers analysis of the game, and IBM refused because it would have been revealed that the computer thought that the played move was inferior. So, again, how do you reach your conclusion that IBM didn't cheat?????

  18. Thanks for this nice video. Your girlfriend is also very cool. I would like to see how she is rating products like mobiles, cars or else just with her eyes in minute 11:29 🙂 .

  19. and you are surprised…. lol….. faster does not mean smarter, smarter means smarter. smarter programmers make smarter programs. not bubble brasher either.

  20. I built my first computer (with the help of my father who had never used one before) in 1989 or 90. It was a 286 40Mhz PC with 2 megs of RAM. At least that's what I remember from being 10 years old. I used to play Kings Quest and of course Battle Chess. It was awesome.

  21. Minimax is minimax, Chess AI didn't become smarter just because the same algorithm is moved to a faster computer.

    Modern computers just finished thinking quicker, and makes it possible for harder difficulty levels to be done in real time. But both the old and new computers are always going it easy because if you put a chess AI at unlimited difficulty, no human players would be able to enjoy the game, the AI would always win.

  22. I laughed too hard at the king taking out the queen. I cringed when she said "thats outdated".. nah people are just too politically correct and easily offended these days!

  23. things a computer can never identify within one game!

    king himself comes to visit, at that point they stand together and all the pawn that make it become queens, because more queens, all others stand aside so the queens can be made.

    a game of playing around, count most pieces moved until no pieces can be moved… no pieces are to be taken at any point.

    a game of romance, working together to get as many queens as possible.

    a game of brutes, first to call check wins

    do any at any point come at a draw!

  24. to play chess as its a way to communicate. you always set to kill everyone other then yourself. this game finds people that are single tracked to the point… if they had a kingdom they would be killing anyone that comes to visit… just because it can be taken, why would you? blind degeneracy can not see the grand structures that can be made in a game before a tie is made… fool only sees war!

  25. Now for the Ultimate test. Can an Amiga beat a Super Nintendo. Chessmaster 2000(Amiga) vs Chessmaster 2000(SNES).

  26. The computer already beat the people level of chess, now they are looking to first person shooter or something of the variety to compare next.

  27. This was fun to watch, but it was rather predictable that the results would be evenly matched. This is akin to pitting a 1980s mathematics student against one from 2020. Assuming the exact same mathematical problems were being utilized, there would be no difference in the rules necessary to completing the problems. The only difference is that the 2020 student could quickly and easily pull up a calculator on his smart phone and solve the problems quicker; whereas, the 1980s student would be more likely to solve each of the problems by hand. Similar to mathematics, the rules do not change in chess. The primary difference here is the computing power of the differing machines. But, still, seeing the Queen get whacked across the head was quite the laugh!

  28. This would actually make a very cool chess tournament. A ton of various Chess programs square off against each other.

  29. "Sub-creatures! Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, the Traveller has come! Choose and perish!"

    Amiga needed the proton-pack upgrade.

  30. The MAC just had pity on the good'ol buddy and let it win. I do wonder if 33 years from now, will that MAC still be working? Or is it looking for a 100000000000gb update?!

  31. It's about the love and effort people put into the product they produce. 1987 "Wow look I put chess on this computer!!' 2020 "Don't forget to include chess on the chrome book"

  32. What is really scary is <BOLD>how much easier it would be at work to actually do the job right with the old computers.</BOLD>
    I mean, a new hp laptop takes far longer to boot into windows that an old i386 takes to boot windows 95. starting msword on a new computer takes 12 times as long as starting msword on an i386 win 95 system.

  33. its the programming that is important not the processing speed. it merely takes more time and it is not more right!

  34. This is comparing the programs at their different ratings. They would need to be put on clocks to compare the machines

  35. Sure, we may not have had all the fancy graphics in the 80's-90s, but our games sure had that ballsy sass factor tuned into the violence and comedy that modern games seem to miss

  36. Playing games is often about playing the player not the maths. I personally find games with an element of random chance more enjoyable as there's then you either capitalising on your perceived luck or making the best of a bad roll of the dice or deal of the cards. Chess offers this when playing the player.

  37. That explanation for Wirth's Law makes no sense. Software needs to run on computers of its time for efficiency, or unless emulation occurs.

  38. You used to spend 8 minutes getting the computer ready loading up the software. Today, you waste it watching people slowly repeating themselves for YouTube view time.

  39. If you had the MAC play against a PC, the MAC would've lost every single time. And that regardless of the ELO rating.

  40. Really it comes down to the algorithms they are using and how efficient they are. Back in the with as slow as computers were you had to be very efficient, so you program had to be very tight with very good logic.

    I'm not saying the logic was better, given the self-learning modern programs have, it was tighter . I'm willing to bet a whole dollar that given enough games the Mac would win 100% of the time.

  41. New viewer/subscriber to the channel. I get the premise, but I don't object to using ports on newer hardware for some of this. I want to see the hardest settings fight.

  42. Although you are saying that an "outdated" computer surprisingly held it's own based on hardware specifications you can not compare them based of the architecture of the system. Macs and PCs alike use a very outdated method of utilizing hardware compared to the Amiga specifically. In a Mac or PC every task is stacked and fed through the CPU which is how multitasking is addressed. In the Amiga tasks are handed out to several processors that are dedicated to specific functions like sound, display, IO, etc and the CPU can dedicate itself to the computation of the chess moves. The Amiga Dos OS was also superior in many ways that lend it the ability to process more precisely and efficiently. Great video for me since the first computer I bought was an Amiga 500 back in 1991 when no other home computer could touch the Amiga and after 30+ years in IT I have yet to see another computer designed with the ingenuity the Amiga had. But then again you just made a video in which the Amiga still showed itself to be amazing even when compared to today's technology. 😉

  43. I'm an expert in chess AI. All that setting the ELO does is make the program play worse moves than it could play otherwise. Furthermore, ELO simply describes the odds of beating your opponent, given their ELO. Two players of equal ELO should win and lose equally often, that's really all it means. The idea that a program set at a particular ELO should win more often than an older program that has an equal ELO is misguided.

  44. Wouldn't the experiment work better with the same game? Using different games is almost like pinning the software against each other not just the CPUs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *