Author: emerson tan
Date: 07:17:53 01/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2003 at 09:39:41, Uri Blass wrote: >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 That's what deep blue team is afraid of, for us to compare their evaluation code with today's program, they will lose thier perceived invicibility.
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.