Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:26:22 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 12:36:01, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On July 08, 2002 at 12:15:06, Uri Blass 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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that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...
>>
>>Results can only prove that they were better than their opponents but this is
>>not the question.
>>
>>Uri
>
>
>That is the problem. That was _the_ question. But since the answer is
>clearly known, everybody wants to change the question to something that would
>try to make deep blue look "less" than what it really was. But it was
>unbeatable, considering that it lost to one micro in almost 10 years of
>competition. Nobody _else_ has ever come close to that kind of dominance.
>
>I think it funny that _now_ the question becomes "was their search optimal"?
>Implying that current micros _are_. Which is a joke. Both have enough holes
>to supply a swiss cheese factory for years. The concept of "optimal" is a
>joke. The concept of "results" is the only scientific way to measure the
>programs against each other. The rest is only subjective opinion.
There has been a big smoke fog spread around Deep Blue.
At the time of the Kasparov match, we have been told that:
1) it was extremely fast.
2) it had much more knowledge than any other program around.
3) it was using some revolutionnary search techniques.
Now that we are able to see more clearly what it was, it turns out that:
1) its superiority came from its speed.
2) the rest was nothing new, and we are still trying to figure out what part was
actually superior to what the best micro programs are doing.
I don't think that noticing the above is against the interest of science.
Christophe
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.