Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:28:49 07/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2000 at 14:38:14, Alvaro Polo wrote: >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. > >I don't know. Probably 100M are real (my opinion only) > >>b) Paderborn 1999 (DEMO program or not) >> > >Christophe's results (1.5-1.5 against Chess Tiger on a Pentium 150Mhz with Tiger >thinking 20 times more time than DBJ) seem to indicate that it was the real DB >Junior, not a demo. > >Alvaro > Not really. His hardware was certainly available in 1997. And in 1997 a single crippled version of a DB chip played the famous match that causes so much discussion here. And did quite well. So his result was really quite good, even against a broken 1 chip version of the program, when you think in that context. DB junior is a real horse, as many GM players can attest to after losing to it during the tuning process for the 1997 DB match. I saw it beat several GMs like drums at exhibition matches at conferences... >>These 2 questions IMO are touching the heart and soul to make up your >>mind about WHO is the strongest TODAY. Again IMO. >> >>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.