Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:39:41 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. > >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. I also guess that Deep Junior has better evaluation but note that David Levy lost against Deep thought 4-0 in 1989 so I do not think that the fact that he is an IM is a reason to support my opinion. I see nothing productive from another disagreement with Bob Hyatt about the same thing and this is the reason that I prefered not to express an opinion in the first post. I do not see what is the commercial interest of Hsu and IBM in deeper blue's evaluation so I do not see a logical reason for them not to post their evaluation. In the case of Junior there is a clear reason not to give the evaluation of Junior because it is a commercial program. This is the reason that I suggested that deeper blue post their evaluation code including the bugs that they had so we can compare it with today's programs. Uri
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.