Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:03:38 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 16:48:09, Randall Shane 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: >>> >>>>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. >> >> > >First, a disclaimer : > >Although I work for IBM as a programmer, what I work on is about as far from >computer chess as one can get without leaving the solar system. Also, I don't >know or have any responsibility towards any of the technical, marketing, or >management people involved with Deep Blue. I wouldn't recognize Hsu if he >walked up to me on the street and punched me in the nose. I'm not trying to >stick up for IBM here -- that's not my job, and they certainly wouldn't pay me >for it, anyway. > >Now that that's over.... > >The above statement can be found at >http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/meet/html/d.3.3a.html#ai >which is apparently a web page put together before the second Kasparov-Deep Blue >match. > >Using the above statement to claim that Deep Blue had a simple evaluation >function is a clear misunderstanding of the paragraph's internal and external >context. From that statement, all that one can reasonably derive is that Deep >Blue has a simpler eval function than the human brain, and that it does not try >to emulate human thinking. One can't derive that Deep Blue has a simple eval >function compared to other chess programs and systems -- nowhere in that >statement is that implied. It's implied when someone wants to distort facts about DB. This happens all the time, unfortunately. You are dead right of course, but you won't get anyone to admit it...
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.