Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:56:46 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 05:50:54, Amir Ban wrote: >On July 17, 2000 at 20:01:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 17, 2000 at 16:09:09, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On July 17, 2000 at 07:22:41, Graham Laight wrote: >>> >>>>I'm afraid I still feel that Junior could have come out ahead (instead of >>>>level)in this tournament by beating Bareev and Khalifman - and possibly by not >>>>losing with such apparent ease to Kramnik. Continuing the game against Anand >>>>might possibly have gained an extra half point as well. >>>> >>>>I think that Amir has an aspiration to make his program demonstably better than >>>>Deep Blue (this certainly comes across in his interviews published on the >>>>Chessbase Website coverage of Dortmund (www.chessbase.com) before the Kramnik >>>>game). If so, as a (hopefully!) impartial member of the viewing public, I'm >>>>afraid to say that I've yet to be convinced. >>>> >>>>As evidence, I point firstly to the games against Bareev and Khalifman. On both >>>>occasions when Deep Blue '97 gained an advantage over Gary Kasparov (who's a >>>>better player than anyone at Dortmund was), it parlayed that advantage into >>>>victory - whilst Deep Junior twice failed conspicuously to "slam in the lamb". >>>> >>>>I would also point to the game against Khalifman. Here we see Deep Junior lose >>>>to a combination of blocked centre and king attack - classic anti computer >>>>methods which have both been well known for a long time. They work because, in >>>>this case, nothing short of truly massive search depth is going to help you to >>>>make the correct moves. >>>> >>>>However, for both king attack and blocked centre, Deep Blue '97 demonstrated >>>>that it's evaluation knowledge was able to adequately handle the challenge. >>>>Indeed, in game 2 in '97, Deep Blue not only handled the blocked centre, it >>>>turned it into a win! >>>> >>>>It took Deep Blue 2 attempts to beat Gary Kasparov, the world's best player - >>>>maybe another year of work will push Deep Junior to a position where it can try >>>>to win these tournaments, instead of settling for a middling position. >>>> >>>>But let's not be completely churlish - Dortmund 2000 was indeed a fantastic >>>>performance by Deep Junior - and a landmark in computer chess history, since >>>>here is both a computer and a program which one can buy in the shops! >>> >>>I disagree with most of this, but it's your opinion, and if experience teaches >>>us anything, it's useless to argue. >>> >>>For the record, I'm not trying to prove that I'm better than Deep Blue. I think >>>I've already shown this some time ago, and I'm not the only one who can say so >>>either. >>> >>>Looking at the (very few) games of DB, I don't see that it had either better >>>evaluation or deeper search than today's top programs. >>> >>>Amir >> >> >>So you are regularly searching full-width to 17-18 plies, and I don't mean your >>odd ply counting, but something comparable to everyone else? You did notice >>the explanation for their depth 10/7 notation that came from the deep blue >>team? >> >>I don't think anyone comes within 4 plies of what they are doing. As far as >>your already having proved that you are as good or better than DB, and others >>having done so to, I guess I missed that somehow... > >You are basing everything on the technical spec of the machine. This is not what >I'm looking at. > >I don't doubt that Deeper Blue had this number of processors and could do that >number of million NPS. I'm also not interested in the debate about what its >advertised ply count really means. What I want to see is where this immense >technical spec shows up in the game and I don't see any evidence that it >achieved more than what other programs get with a fraction of those resources. > >When I buy a television, I look for picture quality, and I trust my own eyes. >I'm not interested in the number of transistors inside and the high price tag, >if I can't see what I get for this. > >Amir So there is no "quality" even though it beat kasparov? Even though he said "This was obviously somethine new and different, unlike other chess computers I had played against"??? I look at results. I haven't seen any results comparable to what they produced when they played kasparov. Some moves were criticized. And then Kasparov's analysis said "that wasn't bad, that was the _only_ move to stay in the game." It looked strong to me. I suspect it looked strong to Kasparov, since he accused them of having "outside help" since it played better than he thought any machine could play.
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.