Author: Chris Carson
Date: 04:35:55 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 23:18:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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. >> >>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. > > >You were doing OK until that last sentence. Do you _really_ think you could >take _any_ program from 1997, run it at 200M nodes per second, and that program >would lose to today's micro programs at 1M nodes per second. I _hope_ you don't >believe that. And yet we _know_ that DB 97 was certainly stronger than any >1997 micro, because deep thought was stronger than any micro of its time and >DB took a quantum leap 100X faster than Deep Thought. Read my last statement again. I said "PC's today", not programs from 97. Yes I do believe that in a double blind match/tournament the top "PC's (single and multi-processor chess programs" would beat DB 96/97. I would add that the Programmers for Fritz, Junior, Tiger, Hiarcs, Shredder, Rebel would have to be included and independant arbiter used. I also agree with Uri's reply: http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?239295
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.