Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:32:06 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 12:18:42, Chris Carson wrote: >On July 08, 2002 at 11:32:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 08, 2002 at 00:32:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On July 06, 2002 at 20:15:06, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I suspect that search may see that the right move help to push the opponent king >>>>>closer to the corner relative to the wrong moves and it may be enough. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Yes, that looks like the best thing to try and work on, doesn't it? >>>> >>>>If not, can I ask two questions?: >>>>1)What should be done during the near future to push computer elo forward as >>>>much as possible? >>>>2)If Deeper blue was really much stronger than todays tops, what was that due >>>>to? Better long-term planning? Seeing deeper? >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>>Huge speed. >>> >>>It was doing most things worse than the best micro programs, but it was doing it >>>so fast that it was eventually stronger. >>> >>>Hum... Let me rephrase for the sensitive people out there. There was nothing >>>Deep Blue did better than the best micro programs. But it was so fast that it >>>allowed it to hide its defficiencies. >>> >>>Shit. That's not very diplomatic either. Let's try again: Deep Blue was build >>>around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that >>>nobody noticed until their creators published their paper. >>> >>>Oops... OK, once again: >>> >>>Bob likes Deep Blue a lot, and that should be a reason good enough to convince >>>you that it was well designed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe ;-) >> >> >>Er... excepting one game by Fritz in 1995, when was the last time you saw >>any micro beat any predecessor of deep blue? When was the last time _your_ >>program beat or drew them? Etc... >> >>Results speak far louder than prejudice... > >Well, I am a fan of DB. It was a great piece of work. Hsu deserves a lot of >credit. > >It won a match against the Human World Chess Champ. TThat is the only good >result for Deep Blue, Deep Thought did more. However there are some other >results that also should be mentioned by objective people. Actually DB Jr also won several matches against GM players, as I have mentioned before. Unfortunately most of the matches were at game/60 type time controls because they were played in a public exhibition where slower games tend to put people to sleep. :) > >DeepBlue lost the World Computer Chess Championship to Fritz 3 in 1995 (losing >to Fritz 3 and a draw to Wchess, beat Rebel). DeepBlue never won a World >Computer Chess Championship (WCCC). First, Deep blue did not exist until early in 1996. It did not lose against Fritz. That was deep thought hardware, as has been explained _repeatedly_ here. For a while, they called it "deep blue prototype" and if you look at the press releases, it clearly said "deep thought hardware running a new search destined to be used on the DB hardware when it is available." Hong Kong was deep thought. Same hardware that won the 1994 ACM event. The 1993 ACM event Deep Thought missed. The 1992 ACM event,t he 1991 ACM event, etc... all the way back to 1987 was won by deep thought. Every event they participated in excepting hong kong in 1995, they won. Even in spite of bad luck such as forfeiting round one in the 1994 ACM event due to power outage. They _still_ won in clear first place (no tie-break needed). Deep Thought did in 1989. Chess Machine >(Rebel) won in 1992 and Shredder in 1999. See: >http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/wcc-comp.htm >DeepBlue scored 3.5/5 in the 1995 WCCC for third place (it did not even play >Chess Genius or Junior), hardly a dominating performance/result in it's >only/last public/fair match/tournament against the PC's. Except it wasn't deep blue. > >After 1995, Deep Blue did not play the pc's in a public tournament/match, it did >play them in some closet somewhere, but the programmers of the PC's had no input >for opening books, settings, learning, ect. The DB programmers were present so >DB had every possible advantage. Not a fair showing in my opinion. It would be >fair if the PC programmers were involved in the match, they were not. > >So we will never know how DB would do in a fair, public match/tournament against >the PC programs. We only have the 1995 results for DB 3.5 overall, and aginst >the top PC programs = 1 win, 1 draw, 1 loss, 2 programs not played. We also have deep thought results from 1987 thru 1995. Over that span of time, it lost one game to a micro and failed to win only one event it entered, the 1995 WCCC in Hong Kong. Pretty dominating, I would say. > >To boast about results means that you must play the games, not just boast about >raw speed. DB was fast, blazing fast, but it did not beat the top programs in >public competition with their programmers running the PC programs. No, but its predecessor at 1/100th the speed _did_ beat the top programs in public competition with their programmers running the PC programs. Year in and year out, from 1987 thru 1994. One bad event, with technical difficulties beyond their control (the disconnect at a critical point in the fritz game in 1995, does _not_ erase all the good results they had.
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.