Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Tiger against Deep Blue Junior: what really happened.

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 04:47:17 07/26/00

Go up one level in this thread


On July 25, 2000 at 20:30:19, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>On July 25, 2000 at 00:07:33, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>So now let's see what happened. On his hardware, Tiger was computing only 25,000
>>positions per second. At 15mn/game time control, that means it was computing
>>375,000 positions per search in average.
>>
>>Isn't Deep Blue supposed to compute way faster? I don't remember the numbers.
>>Was it 1M nodes per second per chip, or 2M nodes per second?
>>
>>If it's only 1M nodes per second and it could only use 3/4 of a second for its
>>search (the rest being taken by "downloading stuffs into the chip" as Bob said),
>>then it's still 750,000 positions per search, twice the number of positions that
>>Tiger could compute during its search on P150.
>>
>>
>>So my conclusion is that I have seen nothing special in this match. I have seen
>>2 chess programs fighting, the one computing more nodes taking the advantage,
>>but certainly not crushing its opponent as some people would like us to believe.
>>
>>The funny thing is that before playing the match I thought I would be crushed.
>>You see, I have been the victim of the propaganda myself...
>>
>>
>>Now if you ask me about the chances of Chess Tiger against Deeper Blue and its
>>200 processors at tournament time controls, I simply say that I think that Chess
>>Tiger has absolutely no chance.
>>
>>But against a single chip, I would say that a program like Chess Tiger running
>>on current top hardware has its chances.
>>
>>Remember that in similar circumstances (fast games played in the same hall)
>>Rebel won against Deep Blue Junior by 3-0.
>>
>>And you know what? Given that Deep Blue does no forward pruning, this is NO
>>SURPRISE.
>
>I am not sure what side of this I'm perceived to be on.  I don't think that you
>can make any conclusions either way about DB, based upon the matches with
>Kasparov, and I'll argue with anyone who concludes anything specific, no matter
>which side of the argument they are on.  I'll argue with Bob and I'll argue with
>the "DB sucks" people.
>
>I should have spoken with you before you went out to play against that thing.
>You told me that it was there, I think in order to give me an opportunity to
>take a shot at it, and I declined.  Here is why I declined.
>
>I didn't know what was on the other end, and while I would have enjoyed getting
>to play against the thing, I figured that there would be no scientific basis in
>anything that happened, with the possible exception of a series of losses, which
>would have shown that *something* on the other end was strong.  It's hard to
>mess up and make something that's strong.  If my program had done well against
>the thing, it could have been because DB is bad, or because DB was configured
>poorly, or was designed to play weakly.  There would be no way the truth, and so
>all the results would have provided is ammunition for future arguments.
>
>My position regarding DB is that it came to the party, ate all of the best food,
>drank all of the alcohol, and left.  It was not much of a conversationalist, and
>it has made it clear that it will speak to nobody, and I'm not happy about this
>display of bad manners.
>
>I'm not going to dig through its garbage hoping to understand more about it from
>reading its shopping lists.
>
>I am not interested in speculating about the tiny bit of evidence that exists,
>so as far as I'm concerned the thing doesn't exist and isn't worth talking
>about, certainly as long as they snub our field while taking its honors.  The
>project is not science and it's not competition, it was just a well-financed PR
>gimmick, and that's shit and I'm not going to let it mess up my life.
>
>People who wait 20 years for Bobby Fischer to come back are pitiful.  I'm sure
>not going to do that here.

Completely agree. Current elo of DB ? 0.0 It isn't playing anymore, therefor it
can't beat any program. Any program is stronger than DB.

My program is even stronger. It will not loose against Euwe, Capablanca and a
lot more former worldchampions.

Tony
>
>bruce



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.