Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:49:59 08/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 2001 at 01:38:14, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>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.
I agree. I'm not saying DB is weaker or stronger, but you can't declare it the
de facto champion because of a big NPS count. I have a saying in chess: "Moves
win games, not ratings". I'd say the same goes here for computers programs and
NPS. If it were a simple matter of having the biggest number, Kasparov would be
WC still and would have no need to defend his title in a match. He's got the
highest rating so just hand him the title. But it's never so simple. Yes, 200M
is a huge difference, but what counts in the end is the score. Fischer got
debunked when he resigned, and other than the US congress, I haven't heard
anyone suggest the title should be handed back to him because of his past
results.
Albert
>
>>>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.