Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:19:54 07/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2000 at 17:00:12, blass uri wrote: >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... > >I do not know about public tournament time control of Deep blue Junior against >GM's and this is the real test. > >I am sure that tiger(p150) can also beat GM's at fast time control(at least GM's > that did not buy tiger and do not know about the weaknesses of tiger) > >Uri DB Jr wasn't beating GM players at blitz. It was beating them at longer time controls. I think the last match I watched was something like game/30 but with an increment on the clock. It was short enough to make it interesting to spectators, but not so short as to become a tactical oversight issue.
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.