Author: Chris Carson
Date: 11:49:22 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 14:26:22, Christophe Theron wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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 I will be happy to publish the steps to pass muster for human (including GM's) experiments. One quick note is that any "scientific" test to be valid must be reliable/published so that it can be shown to be repeatable by an independant scientist. The DB project was a secret thing, it was very nice " h/w technology", but I do not consider much about DB to be related to science. I am not sure the DB results are reliable, I would expect significantly different results if the Human GM played a few more game (say 100 prep like the 2700 GM had against Rebel recently). I expect DB 1996/97 would get beat by the PC's today in a "true" double blind match/tournament.
This page took 0.02 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.