Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 00:32:56 01/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2000 at 02:18:51, Ed Schröder wrote: >On January 19, 2000 at 18:55:42, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 19, 2000 at 18:34:52, blass uri wrote: >>[snip] >>>The question is if the move of deeper blue was the right move. >>>It is not clear that 36.axb5 was the right move. > >>So the argument against 36.axb5 was that it is not such a good move? >>Every program has bugs. There are a very large number of tunable parameters >>with the deep blue machine. Perhaps one (or many) of them was not optimal. > >You misunderstand. It's the DB main-line for 36.axb5 what made Kasparov >suspicious. In this main-line DB sacrificed 3 pawns for no direct win >but for a dangerous looking king attack, all very human-like. Kasparov >could not believe his eyes (he still can't) and started the accusation >human intervertion took place as he could not believe a computer was >able to produce such a (super) main-line. > >So this whole issue is NOT about the move 36.axb5 but about the asthonising >main-line DB produced. OK, that's interesting. I hear that it is a bad move and that is why the computer would not play it, and here we find it is a brilliant move so that the computer could not play it. Too deep, too smart -- whatever. Suppose that Deep Blue formed a ball of perfect correctness for 10 ply or so, and then engaged in wild speculation out to double, triple, or quadruple that far with optimistic searches. Under such a scenario, finding a move like that is not hard to imagine at all. The gist of the problem seems to be that people will say, "My computer will never find that -- not even if I let it search for ten months. Deep Blue must work like my computer, so by a count of nodes it could not get that far either." The problem is that nobody except Murray and Hsu seem to know exactly how it works. So then, we have no guarantee that it works like "my computer" at all. Since it was able to beat the best human player the world has ever known, I tend to believe that the innovation in algorithms and circuitry was simply more advanced than most give them credit for. In fact, I think if we have a box of Hsu's new chips, we may not be able to beat a resurrected Deep Blue even with more horsepower. Because we have not condidered algorithms as clever as they did. I don't know what is in Hsu's book, but if he talks about how the darn thing worked (algorithmically) I am definitely going to be in line for a copy. Pure speculation, of course. But considering the results I don't think it is as far-fetched as many persons might.
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.