Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 09:38:20 08/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2001 at 08:40:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 26, 2001 at 05:41:38, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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 > >You never studied the log files i think. they're full of weird >and very bad positional lines. We definitely can conclude that >deep blues positional ability were at gnuchess level. > >just saying i'm an asswhole is not a very nice viewpoint >Terry. > >Please analyse and note that i'm only quoting bad moves from deep blue >which are seen as beginner moves by GM Seirawan and GM v/d Wiel too. > >So you not only say i'm an asshole, you also say it from them at >the same time! Now that's vain! Those are your thoughts, and I do not share them. Terry
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.