Author: Pete Galati
Date: 11:09:25 03/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2001 at 11:16:59, Uri Blass wrote: >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 It would be interesting (to me, that is) if Intel or one of the other major chip makers would sponsor a Computer Chess tournament, and provide each participant (providing their program has the tech credentials) with a genuinely monstrous smp machine to run on, not just the average quad, but something the average rich person probably couldn't even buy yet. To me, I would see something like that as being great, but it's hard to imagine their publicity departments being able to find a way to capitalize on something like that, which is what would be needed to make the whole thing work. But, IBM's Deep Blue? (seeing as it was the subject of the thread) Seems to me that the team's no longer with them, so I'd bet that it'll never play again, and I don't uderstand why that concerns people so much. Pete
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.