Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 06:24:34 01/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2003 at 09:12:20, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 11, 2003 at 08:51:18, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On January 11, 2003 at 08:38:50, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 11, 2003 at 08:23:43, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>"The next question is, and many people are asking it, do we know how Deep Junior >>>>compares in strength with Deep Blue? The really interesting thing, from the AI >>>>point of view in general and for computer chess researchers in particular, is >>>>that Deep Junior examines something like one percent of the number of positions >>>>per second of Deep Blue. But despite this Deep Junior may well play better chess >>>>because its "understanding" of the game is better. It appears to have more chess >>>>knowledge and understanding in its evaluation function than Deep Blue did, and >>>>this compensates for the difference in positions-per-second.." Extract from >>>>Levy on Chessbase.com site >>>> >>>> >>>>From what I read in Behind Deep Blue I find this surprising. But then again, I >>>>no nothing about Junior other than it is an awesome program. >>> >>>I think that comparison between the quantity of evaluation is meaningless. >>>The right comparison is comparison of the quality. >>> >>>It is easy to add a lot of knowledge without testing for bugs but the result >>>will be a disaster. >>> >>>It is possible that the program that has more knowledge and understanding simply >>>understands things wrong because of bugs or understand the wrong things. >>> >>>I think that discussion about Deep blue's evaluation is meaningless unless Deep >>>blue team post the source code of their evaluation. >>> >>>people simply are not going to agree. >>> >>>If deeper blue post the source code of their evaluation then it will be possible >>>to compare it by changing the source code of the free programs to have the same >>>evaluation as deeper blue's evaluation and use games with fixed number of nodes >>>per move. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>I agree. I do not understand therefore how Levy came to his conculsion. >> >>However, if I had to guess I would say that Deep Blue has more knowledge (it was >> free in terms of calculation) and much of it seems to have been tuned by >>Grandmasters. Hsu talks about Deep Blue going to Joel Benjamins chess school. >>This is not necessarily the same as understanding (strange term), but I know >>where I would put my money. >> >>I find your insistance that only Deep Blue publish their code, biased. It would >>be interesting (although commercial sucide) to compare both evaluation >>approaches against each other and in the way you describe. Levy offers no data >>to backup his claim. Deep Blue not demonstrating it is better by publishing its >>code, does not make Junior better. >> >>Frank > >Look to the many idiotic moves Deep Blue played and try all those positions on >Junior. I am not a good enough chess player to even spot the idiotic moves you suggest. (Did Kasparov BTW?). > >Then you'll know enough. > >Easy test nah? > >Levy as an IM knows more than enough from chess to judge the quality of the >moves made by Deep Blue. Um....not sure. I think he lost to Deep Thought IIRC. Although I can believe he has better judgement in some types of positions. > >I do not understand the comparision anyway. We do not compare a 1910 car with a >2002 car either. > >Now here you compare the 2 things. > >You compare deep blue. no nullmove, no good eval (for 1997 standards sufficient >though) with the formula 1 cars that we build today. > >This is no compare. computerchess has progressed so much last few years. Can you list some of this progress. I may have time to implement it before next weekend ;-) >Best regards, >Vincent Overall Uri is correct. IBM/Hsu did chess a diservice by running away with the big prize.... although Hsu explains some of the reasons for this in his book. Frank
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.