Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:38:14 08/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 2001 at 00:46:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Deep Thought beat the living hell out of every computer chess program for a >period of 10 years. It lost one game to Fritz in 1995. DB2 was 100 times >faster, with a better evaluation. To claim that a program that can only >search 2M nodes per second is as good or better is nothing but pure nonsense, >no matter how it gets justified. It drew with WChess in the same tournament, I say in order to give Dave his often overlooked due. I don't care whether it makes sense to say it or not. All of us have a right not to have the ghost of Deep Blue sticking its thumb up our butts for the rest of our lives. >It is a _lot_ different... because Frans knows better, as do I and many >others. I doubt he would have played them a best 2-of-3 in 1995. He took >the win and ran. Because he _knew_ he could not repeat such a lucky break >a second time... nor could any other program either. He didn't have to play them a second time. That was round five. He won. Because he'd lost in the first round, and won the last four, he had four points. DT2 had won its first three games, drew the fourth, and lost the fifth. That's 3.5 points. I've never heard anything that says that you have to give someone with a half-point less a rematch. Fritz was at the next open event, in 1999. DT/DB could have shown up and played there, no problem. I don't know what Frans thinks about his chances in that game. Perhaps he would expect to lose. But you can't fault him for being "scared" or "running" when he's played in every event since then, and DT/DB have played in *zero*. >I only have to think about the 200M nodes per second to realize how good it >was, even had I not _seen_ it play games. To think today's programs are even >close is just something I can't believe anyone would take seriously. At best >it is marketing hyperbole. At worst it is dishonest. Either end of the thing >is _bad_. It's a big number, but life is full of upsets. One of the rules of sport is that you have to play the game, you can't just declare yourself the winner based upon everyone's perception of you. >>If they want the reputation, let's see them rejoin the community and play a >>bunch of games. > > >You can only do what the people in charge allow. They _did_ compete from 1987 >until the last ACM event that was held. They did quite well during that span >of time, proving that they were simply in a class by themselves. In the last >ACM event, they had to forfeit a game due to a monster power failure at the >Watson center, yet they _still_ won the tournament outright with no tie-break >system needed. A wonderful result, but the ACM events are also not a permanent title. >>If they don't want to do that, it's hard to provide substantitive >>counter-argument against the "Deep Blue Sucks" people, and I don't see why any >>of us should try. >> >>Bob, they left and they aren't coming back. They didn't make much of a real >>legend before they left. Posthumous attempts to create a legend for them >>shouldn't be our business. >Didn't make a legend? Were you present in 1987, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, >etc? I was present and saw what they did to everybody that showed up. Over >and over. Any AI book names DB as the strongest chess engine yet built. Until >someone seriously challenges that 200M node per second number, the books will be >right... I think it's important to identify what we are talking about here. DT was what played between 1987 and 1994, and no, I wasn't there for that. DT2 was some sort of partial prototype of DB, and it played in 1995. Yes, I was there for that. DB played 12 games in 1996 and 1997 verus Kasparov. I saw these on the internet like everyone else. DT was dominant in its day, but I don't think it would be as dominant now. We're solving some of the Nolot positions in less time than it took DT in circa 1994, and DT isn't known as a postitional monster. DT2 was 3.5 out of 5.0, which may have been a fluke but there it is. DB is 0 out of 0 so far against computers. That record doesn't convince me of anything. I don't think anyone should have to declare them permanent champion for the next twenty years or however long it takes for us to match their node rate. Maybe the Spruce Goose was a wonder to fly, but all it took was the one short hop, and there it sits in a warehouse. Maybe DB was wonderful against computers. It's against any sane scientific principle to say YES or NO based upon the evidence, which is nil. We not only don't have games played by the thing, we don't have any public examples of how fast the thing solves any test positions. I don't say they suck, but I do say that without a lot more than they've produced so far, it's correct to remain agnostic about them. It's not possible to know how strong they are against computers. Any assertion is based upon very thin evidence. bruce
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.