Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:16:59 03/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2001 at 09:51:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On March 30, 2001 at 09:17:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 30, 2001 at 08:44:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On March 28, 2001 at 23:14:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On March 28, 2001 at 16:38:31, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>>> >>>>>chinook ckeckers, (the checkers equivalent of deep blue)is ready to face all >>>>>comers on its web site(admittedly a single processor version, but the same >>>>>software)why cant deep blue or even deep blue junior do the same? is it because >>>>>it is scared of being exposed for what it really is? >>>>> >>>>>rajen >>>> >>>> >>>>Why would they be afraid to expose it as an incredible chess-playing >>>>machine? Can't we figure that out from the Kasparov match? >>> >>>As you know stocks and shares have dropped past months/weeks quite >>>a bit. Still IBM is worth 167.3% >>> >>>After match IBM stock went up most likely because of Deep Blue 22% in 1997 >>>right after winning match. >>> >>>So letting deep blue lose on the web now from all commercial progs >>>and a bunch of chessplayers who will figure out its weaknesses >>>would be risking 22% x 167.3 = 36.806 billion dollar >> >> >> >>First, Deep Blue would not lose on the web to all commercial programs. Some >>might tend to report things optimistically. IE "My program beat Deep Blue" >>when it should be "My program beat deep blue one game out of 23." > >Ok first of all from chesstechnical viewpoint i would be amazed if >deep blue at slow level would ever get further as a draw against me. > >Note i assume it is possible to play slow level against it as i >see it on average wasted like 30 seconds a move, which probably >means it either had a hell slow operator or it needs like zugzwang >quite some time to communicate to the processors to start the search. > >So i definitely doubt it. > >But let's approach it from how IBM will approach it. It will be >a business decision, and those decisions are usually taken by managers >who probably never heart of the 'en passant' rule (i'm not implying >that most readers of CCC therefore know the rule). > >Managers think in terms of numbers. The number is quite convincing >to NEVER ever again let Deep Blue live when it is interesting to let it >play. It's obvious that in 2001 programs are hell better now as in 1997. > >Like any commercial program of today will beat the hell out of this deep >blue thing. If it's not book, then it's because of pawn structure, if it's >not because of that, then it'll be exchanging some crucial pieces in the >middlegame etcetera. > >However this is all of no concern of business men. They see a 37 billion >dollar risk. > >Even if that risk would be 0.05 as you say (though i think it's more >like a 100% sure risk) then count the win versus lose problem. > >I'm bad in math, so are the business men, so they will do next >math: > > overall risk: 22% of stocks/shares = 37 billion > > working risk: 0.05 x 37 billion = 1.85 billion risk > working win : ?? x ?? = 0 > >What can they WIN with it? What is their working win? >Their working risk is arguably 0.05. > >Most likely it's more like 60%. >Things go bad in this world economically now because of big crises in Japan >(or whatever). > >So SUPPOSE intel goes play them. With DIEP at a 32 processor Xeon. Intel has no reason to play them with Diep. There are other parralel programs that are considered to be better than Diep (Fritz,Shreeder,Junior and Crafty) I see no proof that Diep is better than one of these programs. The results of the last tournament suggest that Diep with a quad is not better than yace with 1 processor. Uri
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.