Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:01:20 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 23:51:00, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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? >> >>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..." >> >>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. >> >>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... >> >> >> >>>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... >> >>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... >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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... >> >>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??? > >It was searching 2M NPS, right? How much time does it need to search?? And in >case you forgot your own propoganda, DB's evaluation function is so phenominally >incredible that it only needs a 1 ply search to grind PC programs into the >ground. > >-Tom I really don't know. I would guess 2M nodes per second. Most of the eval was turned off as it took seconds to download all the lookup tables into the chess hardware and that would leave no time for searching. Hsu said that he originally thought that the thing might play at a 2200 level if he was lucky. He later said that was probably an optimistic estimate. You can find out more by emailing him directly if you want... And hyperbole doesn't cut it here. I never said or implied that a 1 ply search by DB could grind anybody into the dirt. a 16+ ply search will certainly do that. Without any doubt at all...
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.