Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 17:28:37 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 03:08:09, Ed Schröder 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? > >The list of main events Rebel participated can be found on: > >http://www.rebel.nl/r8-r9.htm > I am curious how come you have your The Chess Machine, which (and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong) not the same program at all, and was hardware based, as your Rebel programs. Actually, I attended the Vancouver tournament, met some interesting people, played some blitz games (in 1990 I was only 1300 CFC as opposed to 2100 CFC today) against some of the programs. Heck, I thin I might have even said hi to you Ed! :)) Jason >>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 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.