Author: Alvaro Polo
Date: 13:54:58 07/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2000 at 15:28:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > This famous match was done on an equal time basis, I suppose. DBJ against CT was done with Tiger thinking 20 times longer than DBJ, and thus an equal result can be explained. As for the DBJ-GMs matches, I believe that most of the games played at conferences were short games, 15 minutes/game or so. Alvaro > > >>>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.