Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:40:55 08/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2001 at 12:10:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 26, 2001 at 18:36:31, Amir Ban wrote: > >>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 >> >>I've written on this several times, and to summarize my position, it is that a >>machine that is much better than all the others must be shown to play an >>objectively good move that the others don't, or at least the others need much >>more time to get it. >> >>During the debate the supporters of Deep Blue's exceptional strength were asked >>to name such a move, but failed to show anything convincing. >> >>This was the situation even in 1997, when PC's and engines were weaker. >> >>If Deep Blue did not play in its entire career a move that shows exceptional >>depth, then I'm not prepared to believe it had it (and if it had it, it was a >>wasted career). >> >>Amir > >Well spoken Amir, but we can add more to this, and that's the huge number >of bad moves made by the IBM machine which are not made by any of todays >software, both our programs included. > >See journal of ICCA june 1997 with a huge number of moves which Seirawan >gives a ? or ?! mark where todays software hardly makes any of those >beginners moves as they are usually covered in basic knowledge. > >Best Regards, >Vincent Vincent, one only has to look at the most recent WMCCC event, at your program (or any other program there) to find moves at _least_ as ugly as some of the moves you mention for DB. Why can you play lousy moves, game after game, they play one lousy move in a game, and you criticize them without critizing your own program (or any of the others there..)
This page took 0.01 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.