Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Wanted: Deep Blue vs. today's top programs recap

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 02:21:57 08/26/01

Go up one level in this thread


On August 26, 2001 at 04:56:46, Terry McCracken wrote:

>On August 25, 2001 at 21:45:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On August 25, 2001 at 21:27:32, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>there is loads of data, megabytes of logfiles.
>>
>>Checkout the mainlines from DB and the moves it made.
>>Plenty and plenty of data to test your engine at and compare with.
>>
>>I'm only 2300 rated and FM soon (list 1 octobre 2001), but i can
>>follow each move in every game and explain most mistakes made by DB
>>by quite simple chessknowledge mistakes.
>>
>>How about you?
>>
>>The only counter argument i keep hearing is that it beated kasparov!
>>
>>Well kasparov also lost from genius somewhere in 1989 already, genius
>>at a 286 or something?
>>
>>>On August 25, 2001 at 20:47:44, Mig Greengard wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sorry to dredge this up yet again, and ignore this rather than turn it into a
>>>>flame war or something worse. I know feelings on this topic can run hot.
>>>>
>>>>Although we do not have enough of Deep Blue's games to make anywhere near an
>>>>accurate assessment of its chess strength, I am requesting a summary of thoughts
>>>>on how today's top programs measure up on a science level. In the past I've seen
>>>>some admirably objective breakdowns on this topic from Bob Hyatt and a few
>>>>others, but did not save them.
>>>>
>>>>Put Deep Fritz, or other top programs, on the best available platform on which
>>>>they can run, and I imagine this is what they will have in Bahrain, and knowing
>>>>what we do about DB, what comparisons can we make?
>>>>
>>>>Subjective arguments (chess knowledge in particular) are also welcome, but
>>>>should be concise as opposed to argumentative!
>>>>
>>>>Thanks, Mig
>>>>
>>>>Editor-in-chief
>>>>http://www.kasparovchess.com
>>>
>>>Expect great foolishness on both sides of the fence.
>>>You will hear:
>>>The best chess engine of all time (my position, but I may very well be wrong)
>>>You will hear:
>>>"My amateur engine could beat its pants off"
>>>
>>>Since we don't have access to Deep Blue, it is all pure speculation.  The answer
>>>to all of our questions about Deep Blue is rooted in data.  Data is what is
>>>missing, so we really have no answers.
>>>
>>>To look at a game and say:
>>>"By looking at the quality of this move, I recognize that Deep Blue is sheer
>>>genius!"
>>>You might be looking at the output of a BUG in the software.
>>>
>>>We might puzzle mightily at some move that looks dumb.  "Look at this boneheaded
>>>move!"
>>>But Deep Blue saw something all the null movers trim out, and would not see if
>>>they ran their programs for a year.
>>>
>>>In short, if you expect reliable responses that have scientific value, don't
>>>hold your breath.  On the other hand, you should get plenty of stuff if you are
>>>interested in "Yellow Journalism."
>>>;-)
>
>Mr. Vincent Diepeveen , if you won't talk intelligently about Deep Blue II
>then please shutup!
>
>You know better or should know better! I've heard this idiotic arguement by
>you again and again, I really don't know how IBM's Deep Blue team can keep
>silent in view of your skewed data!
>
>I hope Dr. Robert Hyatt, can somehow put your distortion of Deep Blue's
>ability to rest, but somehow I think that's impossible due to the fact
>you like to continue to lie about Deep Blue II's ability/inability!

I believe that he does not lie about Deep blue II.
lying is not only saying wrong things.
lying is saying things that you believe that they are wrong.

Saying things that other people told you that they are wrong is not lying if you
do not believe the other people.

>You're full of it, and thousands know it, so why continue?
>Who do you think you're kidding?
>Deep Blue II is _not_ 2800, but hell, it sure is over 2600+ period, and no
>commercial programme can boast true Super GM strength!

It is not clear.
Tiger and Junior did super GM performance in tournaments.

 It's truly stronger
>than any commercial programme on todays' hardware, PC class, or 8-Way
>Box.

It is not proved.
You have the right to have your opinion and other people may have different
opinions.

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.