Author: Chris Carson
Date: 11:31:48 07/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2000 at 14:07:26, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 26, 2000 at 07:31:12, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>You can believe any of the scholarly sources of information with Hsu and/or >>other members of the DB team on it, like IEEE Micro for instance, or the paper >>from an AAAI workshop last year. Or, you can believe the web page. It's your >>call, Ed. >> >>Dave > >Okay... I get the point. Here is what I mean with all those contradictions >between the IBM pages and other papers, statements and I will be detailed. > >This forum is about playing strength mainly, 90%? more..? > >For this reason only DB is a hot topic even after 3 years. It is about >WHO is the STRONGEST. That is the MAIN question here and you can taste >in almost every posting. > >We want to know which program is the best TODAY. This topic for instance >started right after the Dortmund event, "is DJ stronger than DB" and off >we went... another new endless DB discussion. New DB discussions will >happen again and again until the question WHO is the strongest TODAY will >be answered. Not really something to look forward when candidate number >one is not present anymore. > >Now what bothers me is the following: > >PRELUDE: in this posting "IBM" stands for the whole DB team, Hsu and co >included. > >198x - 1995: DT/DB dominates computer chess against 386/486/6502 machines. > >1995: DT lost the world championship in Hong Kong (just 3.5 out of 5) > >1991: DT doing 7 million nodes (source IBM) >1995: DT doing 7 million nodes (source IBM) > DT doing 2 million nodes (source Hsu) > >1996: IBM claims 100 million nodes. > >100 million nodes fixed a huge image problem IBM had because of the loss >of last year. > >It did the trick at least in my mind. Surely Hong Kong was a mistake and >it would never happen again. So there was no question about it who was >the strongest. Note that our minds are feed with information that comes >from a commercial source and this information is still playing a huge >role here in CCC even today trying to answer the question, WHO is the >strongest. Who can beat 100 million nodes a second? Answer: none and >this dominated our minds, even today. > >Until last year I had no single reason to doubt the numbers (or any other >information) that came from IBM and took everything for granted that came >from IBM. Today I doubt the jump from 2 million to 100 million. IBM had >a very good reason. Image was on steak after the Hong Kong debacle. IBM's >answer: 100 million. Problem solved. Most of us happily fell asleep. > >Now I am not the person to start conspiracy theories but this one touches >the soul and existence of CCC which is playing strength and WHO is the >STRONGEST. > >IBM has proven being a sloppy partner when the topic is giving right >information. I like to mention all the contradictions as pointed out in >the previous postings of the last days. > >I also like to point to the habit of IBM to come up with explanations >every time they lose or make a bad move. The last example of this are >the 6 games of DB-JR in Paderborn last year. The furious answer came a >few months later high lighted as follows, literally: > > "Ed Schröder has misused this opportunity at will, to make false > advertisement for his program". > >The story is pointed out on: http://www.rebel.nl/reb-css.htm > >Note this page needs an update as at the time I gave the case a rest. > >In email with Hsu one of the authors of Deep Blue it became clear >to me that at least one of the main items of their defence (Deep Blue >Junior thinking only 1 second per move) was not true as Hsu admitted >that Deep Blue Junior at least used "panic time" when Deep Blue Junior >found itself in trouble. Apparently this confession came because in the >discussion I kept my point straight up having seen Deep Blue Junior >thinking 10-15 seconds frequently, having witnesses of that too. > >I still keep my point straight up Deep Blue Junior using it's time >control in the same way as any other chess program playing blitz. > >After that confession I stopped believing the whole story Deep Blue >Junior just being a DEMO program of 2200 elo. Every time the machine >loses it is something else. Saying first "one second" as a main point >of your defence and take it back later doesn't sound good. > >Furthermore the documentation that came with the program (nor on the >screen) did not mention any of the playing strength restrictions as >pointed out by Hsu in the CSS article (see the URL above) so we took >the thing for real otherwise we would not have touched the machine. > >I take these 6 games for real coming close to DB-JR real playing strength. > >These 6 games were played out of curiosity. The opportunity was there >to learn something about the machine and we were expecting to be beaten >badly by the monster. The opposite happened leaving Christophe, the >spectators and myself in astonishment behind. > >There is also no doubt in my mind any other strong (amateur) program >could beat the Deep Blue Junior in Paderborn. I don't want any credit >for these games. This is just for the sake of the truth. > >Note: I have nothing against Hsu in fact I removed the 6 games from the >Rebel Home Page on request of Hsu. Not that I was in agreement with that >but I did it out of respect for him and his achievements and the joy his >program has given me and the whole chess community. > >For me 2 points are most crucial: > >a) 2M (1995) to 100M (1996) real or not. >b) Paderborn 1999 (DEMO program or not) > >These 2 questions IMO are touching the heart and soul to make up your >mind about WHO is the strongest TODAY. Again IMO. > >Ed Good points Ed. Rebel has proven itself to be a very creative GM strength program. I am proud to have it as one of the two programs I play against today and I will continue to get upgrades. :) It has improved my chess game (at least in the opinion of the opponents I play). You are right, performance is the deciding factor (all the rest is just smoke and mirrors). DB 97 gave a good 6 game performance, but never repeated it and Rebel has given a tremendous performance over and over and over again. :) Your eval and search algorithms have continued to improve and evolve, DB is stuck in a rut and needs a lot of hype (and anything can happen in a single game, ask Kasparov). :) Keep up the good work and soon the DB 97 TPR will fall, just as easily as the 96 DB TPR did. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.