Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:08:09 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 20:54:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 15:38:10, Ed Schröder wrote: > >> >>Yeah..... let's talk about chess! DT losing in Hong Kong 1995 and never >>trying to get the world champion champion title when they had the chance >>to proof that Hong Kong was a mistake. Perhaps it was no mistake? >> > > >OK... Fair enough. How many WCCC events or WMCCC events did _you_ skip? >Why? I believe you said you got tired of the book wars. But you could >have still competed, right? And maybe done poorly if your book was busted? >And sales would have suffered? The list of main events Rebel participated can be found on: http://www.rebel.nl/r8-r9.htm >Remember that after the Kasparov match, IBM wasn't going to do _anything_ to >taint the incredible public relations coup they obtained by beating the world's >best chess player. The marketing guys would have gone ballistic had Tan allowed >DB to enter a computer chess event where any possible outcome except for 100% >wins would have resulted in lots of chess-thumping "I beat Deep Blue..." This is not correct. We were promised a DB Internet version everybody could play. Where is it? >I don't what happened. But it was certainly predictable. I have no doubt >that they would be an overwhelming favorite in any computer chess event. But >Hong Kong can happen again. All it takes is a communication failure and a >restart at the right instant and <blam> you play a bad move. Hong Kong proved >it _could_ happen. >And IBM marketing would _not_ allow that chance to be taken. A little bird told you or IBM? >From a business perspective, they would be utterly stupid to play in any other >event, until the long-term 'buzz' from the 1997 match fades into the past... If you think you are so superior (as they claim!) I would like to show to the world. I also believe that if you make such claims you are obliged to proof it. The IBM pages are full of claims, here is one: "Over the years, Chiptest evolved first into Deep Thought, then into Deep Blue, the most powerful chess-playing computer ever constructed." This was written in 1997 while another program was world-champion in that period (1995-1999) nota bene beaten in a direct confrontation. I call this kind of information misleading, softly speaking. Tell me why should I believe the IBM propaganda and everything else they say. Heck I even have started to doubt the never questioned 200 million NPS as just being good for their sales. IBM has been caught on lies and false interpretations (the match being scientific, promising Kasparov to give him full explanations after the match) and more of such. Why should I trust any information that comes from a source that has proven itself being unreliable providing misleading information. >>What about DT not seeing a simple tactics on tournament time control (!!) >>every chess program sees within 10 seconds? > >You do remember Hsu's explanation? That DT _had_ found the right move in >that bad book line (g3 I think, I am not sure). And a communication failure >caused them to restart and it moved before it saw the problem with the move >it played? That has happened to me. It is part of the game. And they lost >because of it... Any chance you can back this up? Are you suggesting 16. c4????? came from a hardware or communication failure? DT lost because of missing a simple tactics, just 10 plies deep and that on tournament time control while every program will see in a few seconds. Even after a restart 16.c4?? should have been rejected within a few second **IF** the machine is the tactical beast you want us to believe. So now we have 2 cases from practise DT/DB being caught not being the superior beast followed by 2 explanations from the IBM camp (bug, hard- ware failure) assuming your informations are correct. Especially the 16.c4??? excuse is an extremely poor one given the fact 16.c4 is about a very simple tactics. >But remember, that was one of exactly two games they lost to a micro program >since 1988. Pretty tough to follow such a dominating performance... This argument has been already successfully weakened by Chris. DT winning from 5 Mhz 6502 and 386/486 machines is not exactly something to be proud on. When it had to face a simple Pentium-90 things went wrong. After that they just disappeared still claiming being the best. Not very conving. >> >>What about the DB-GK position Uri posted recently DB being dead wrong >>not seeing a giant material loss? > > >The fishy PV problem? That is common in their output and doesn't bother me >a bit. They can't get the PV like we do, so they have to probe around in 32 >processors to get the various "best moves". And they occasionally get nonsense, >which is not totally unexpected... Nope. I am talking about Rd1?? see my other posting. >Didn't bother me as the score was reasonable, as was the move they played in >the game. > > >> >>What about the 3 games Chess Tiger played last year in Paderborn against >>the Internet version of DB-JR versus Tiger running on a slow 150 Mhz? In >>case you forgot the score was 1.5-1.5 >> > > >Against a crippled version using almost no time to search, with no repetition, >no 'state' of the game, etc? I get thumped all the time on ICC when I run up >a new version with a serious glitch. Or when something else is running so that >I get 1% of my CPU for a couple of moves. Does that mean my program is weak??? >On the quad??? > > > > >>Not to speak about the 3-0 Rebel scored against this DB-JR Rebel running >>on a simple 333 Mhz notebook. At least these games were real, real in the >>sense 6 games were published and many people have watched them live. I was >>not shouting 3-0 only at least I could produce the evidence. How about >>these supposed 40 games? I have never seen one. >> >>Well... this is what you get when you hide, do not play, shout 36-4 and >>provide no evidence. >> >>Ed > > > >They didn't hide from 1988 to 1995. Where were you then??? - 1991 Vancouver: world champion micro's - 1992 Madrid: world champion all classes - Various first places on SSDF - Overall best computer at AEGON (man vs machine) Good enough ??????? Ed
This page took 0.01 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.