Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:56:43 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 15:14:50, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 21, 2000 at 13:33:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 21, 2000 at 11:32:45, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On July 21, 2000 at 11:03:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 21, 2000 at 07:42:00, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 21, 2000 at 07:06:08, Alvaro Polo wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 21, 2000 at 01:11:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 19:57:16, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 19:11:03, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[Event "DB-GK the rematch"] >>>>>>>>>[Site "am Rd1; bm Rf5+"] >>>>>>>>>[Date "2000.05.31"] >>>>>>>>>[Round "?"] >>>>>>>>>[White "DEEP BLUE"] >>>>>>>>>[Black "Garry Kasparov"] >>>>>>>>>[Result "0-1"] >>>>>>>>>[WhiteElo "?"] >>>>>>>>>[BlackElo "?"] >>>>>>>>>[FEN "4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 1"] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>DB played Rd1?? which caused a giant immediate material loss where Rf5+ >>>>>>>>>is the obvious defence. The most convincing argument is the score DB gave >>>>>>>>>for Rd1?? way too positive (perhaps Uri remembers) and the very negative >>>>>>>>>(and correct) scores some of the micro's gave when they did an analysis. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Didn't someone say this one was caused by a C macro being improperly expanded or >>>>>>>>some such? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't know and I really don't care. All we have are a few games and >>>>>>>hiding behind bugs is not a very convincing argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ed >>>>>> >>>>>>If what you are seeking is the truth you should care. >>>>>> >>>>>>Alvaro >>>>> >>>>>The truth is that Ed, Uri, and Amir are right. DB had bugs >>>>>and a simple eval (so that HSU could put it into ASICS, HSU >>>>>was a HW guy Murry was the SW guy, trade offs were made to >>>>>create ASICS). >>>>> >>>>>Best Regards, >>>>>Chris Carson >>>> >>>> >>>>You are obviously an ASIC expert? And their claim of 8,000 adjustable eval >>>>terms is therefore bogus? And it was our imagination that it beat Kasparov >>>>3 years ago? >>> >>>From the IBM site: >>> >>> Does Deep Blue use artificial intelligence? >>> The short answer is "no." Earlier computer designs that >>> tried to mimic human thinking weren't very good at it. No >>> formula exists for intuition. So Deep Blue's designers have >>> gone "back to the future." Deep Blue relies more on >>> computational power and a simpler search and evaluation >>> function. >>> >> >> >>What is the point? "not using AI"? Who is? Who isn't using a simpler >>search and evaluation compared to what was thought to be necessary 20 >>years ago? Don't you use full-width? Aren't you faster than Crafty? > >The point is the IBM site claims: DB (I quote) > > "Deep Blue relies more on computational power and a simpler > search and evaluation function." > >A simple evaluation function. This is in contradiction with another >claim (I now quote you) > > "And their claim of 8,000 adjustable eval terms is therefore > bogus?" > >See above. This implies something else. Who made that "8000" statement >BTW? > >Ed > Hsu and Campbell. It was reported here by more than one person that attended different lectures they gave. BTW, you are overlooking a very important character in the above quote... the letter "r" "simple" and "simpler" do _not_ mean the same thing. maybe that is just a language problem. But I can have a very complex algorithm that is simpler than a more complex algorithm. While it would not be considered "simple" at all. Seemed obvious to me, anyway...
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.