Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:40:51 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 14:49:22, Chris Carson wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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. BTW this is not the only must for the result "valid". Rolf Tueschen > >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 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.