Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:47:11 01/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2000 at 02:10:26, stuart taylor wrote: >On January 20, 2000 at 22:20:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 20, 2000 at 22:09:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2000 at 18:53:15, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 2000 at 17:55:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>Doesn't matter. What appears strong to a class B player doesn't necessarily >>>>>appear strong to a master. DB pretty well proved itself rating and performance >>>>>wise. Both against humans and computers... >>>> >>>>Dr. Hyatt, >>>> >>>>I have always treated you with respect. I hope you will >>>>take back this tasteless comment. >>>> >>>>Best Regards, >>> >>> >>>>Chris Carson >>> >>>What is "tasteless". The point being that to "us" a computer might look >>>impossibly strong. To a GM, it might look impossibly weak. And _both_ would >>>be right. Although I doubt DB looks "weak" to any GM really looking... >> >> >>That was worded backward. To a weaker player, DB might look pretty close to >>equal with PC programs. To a GM, it doesn't. > > >Mr. Hyatt, > Many positions and moves have already been compared, and DB is not always >more correct than software. That happens. But no computer has beaten Kasparov in a match. No program has beaten the old Deep Thought more than one game, period. I have posted DT's results over a 10 year period, which included 2 losses to microcomputer programs... and a bunch of wins... > And regarding what weak players can see (however you put it) are you >personally a stronger player than us? If you don't know the answer to that >question, then how can you make such comments? I make the comment from two perspectives: (1) Kasparov commented that DB was something "new" after game one, a computer with a whole new "view" of the game. He hasn't said that about _any_ micro. Other GMs have said similar things. So the GM opinion is that DB is very strong. Maybe all don't think it is as strong as the top 10. But those same GMs don't think the micros are as strong as the top 200 either. (2) I am a decent chess player. And I am a more-than-decent chess programmer with a lot of experience. And I have had the opportunity to _actually see_ the old deep thought program/machine in action. And I understand what the difference between 1M nodes per second and 200M nodes per second really is. And finally, I understand how much time and hardware Hsu invested in DB's "supposedly inferior to micro programs" evaluation. And I know how DB using one chess processor at 1/10th its normal speed crushed several top micro programs in 1995-1996. Taking all of that into account, I see no way, with my knowledge of the above, to conclude that "micros are not very far behind..." > At any rate when people like like myself write something don't you presume we >have enough >sense to base what we write on clear evidence and reasoning based on clear >facts? Not to write clutter? I generally don't write "clutter". But I fail to see how _anyone_ can claim to write intelligently about what deep blue can and can't do, without ever having talked to Hsu, attended one of his talks, or watched his machine during a chess game. I have done all three of the above, which does give me some information to base an educated guess of an opinion. Others simply jump on the micro's side with "DBs eval sucks".. "DBs search depth sucks, it only gets to 10-11 plies" without having _any_ understanding of how they count plies. The list goes on and on... >Regards >S.Taylor
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.