Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 13:42:13 01/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2003 at 09:24:34, Frank Phillips wrote: look to analysis from Seirawan. June 1997. they crack down deep blue everywhere from technical viewpoint. And Kasparov even more. Of course. Kasparov never played well against comptuers. Why would he? He always got away with it. I still have the opinion that kasparov just gave away a show by bad games up to game 5 and that game 6 he had the impression that deep blue didn't mind to exchange queens (see one of the games before where deep blue exchanges queens with Qg6?) which would have lost of course for deep blue in game 6. then it didn't exchange (kasparov of course like nearly no one knows how evaluations work so we can excuse kasparov for not knowing where his 'computer' secondant really must be seen as the real idiot because he should have warned kasparov). kasparov goes into a line and only then realizes how well it plays for the computer. he then opens position with b5?? and i do not know why he did this. My assumption is he simply made a human error to play that KNOWN lost line. And if he would have been given a rematch, the world would have forgotten deep blue already a long time ago. But of course they didn't. They achieved their objective and that's it. Now read the commentary of Seirawan. He isn't a bad player at all. he has very well analyzed the games and put ? and ?! and ! everywhere where he found it needed. on average 5 bad moves a game (with exception of game 6) is pretty much. Today i made 0 bad or dubious moves. not to mention that i didn't make any blunder. So i won in like 20 moves and another 10 moves to proof my technique. >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.