Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:17:28 01/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2003 at 14:19:09, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On January 11, 2003 at 23:36:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 11, 2003 at 19:23:20, Omid David Tabibi 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. >>>> >>>>If only Hsu had produced his chip so we could have answered this question rather >>>>than use it to fires. >>>> >>> >>>If say Deep Blue was 100x faster than Deep Junior, then I suggest that you >>>conduct the following test: >>> >>>Take an engine which has a very simple evaluation function, and its speed (NPS) >>>is about Junior's speed, turn off all its selectivity (e.g. null-move pruning, >>>futility pruning, etc), and let it play against Deep Junior. The time control >>>should be 100x in favor of the brute force engine, e.g. 500 min/game for the >>>brute force one, and 5 min/game for Deep Junior. >>> >>>I will gladly bet on a convincing win for Deep Junior. >> >>How about this: >> >>Deep Junior on current hardware, set up as normal. >> >>Deep Junior on hardware 200X faster, with no selective forward pruning. But >>with _everything_ else the same. >> >>Care to bet now? >> > >Based on the 6 games, I did not see any deep positional knowledge on Deep Blue's >behalf, but 6 games alone might not be a sufficient indicative. What were you looking for? According to _any_ GM that has commented, as one example, they claim that game 2 was the best-played game of chess by a computer, _ever_. They went farther, "Any GM would have been proud to have played that game instead of the computer." So exactly _what_ do you look for for "deep positional knowledge?" > >Assuming that Deep Blue's evaluation was more or less in Deep Junior's level, it >would be hard to guess the effect of forward pruning (and no, I will not bet!). > I would bet given 100X time odds. Forward pruning isn't going to be enough to overcome that. > >>You are assuming facts not in evidence. Namely that DB2 had an inferior >>eval. Nothing I have seen suggests that. Not Kasparov's comments. Not >>anybody's comments. (Except for Vincent of course). >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>Good luck to Junior and team in the coming match. >>>> >>>>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.