Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 02:41:38 08/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2001 at 05:21:57, Uri Blass wrote: >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. He knows better Uri! > >>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. BS! >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. Nonsense! >You have the right to have your opinion and other people may have different >opinions. > >Uri Opinions are just that...opinions, but facts are facts and the Deep Blue II's log files reveal many facts. Mr. Diepeveen, outright lies, knowing these facts! TM
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.