Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Wanted: Deep Blue vs. today's top programs recap

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 05:40:05 08/26/01

Go up one level in this thread


On August 26, 2001 at 05:41:38, Terry McCracken wrote:

>On August 26, 2001 at 05:21:57, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On August 26, 2001 at 04:56:46, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>
>>>On August 25, 2001 at 21:45:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 25, 2001 at 21:27:32, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>there is loads of data, megabytes of logfiles.
>>>>
>>>>Checkout the mainlines from DB and the moves it made.
>>>>Plenty and plenty of data to test your engine at and compare with.
>>>>
>>>>I'm only 2300 rated and FM soon (list 1 octobre 2001), but i can
>>>>follow each move in every game and explain most mistakes made by DB
>>>>by quite simple chessknowledge mistakes.
>>>>
>>>>How about you?
>>>>
>>>>The only counter argument i keep hearing is that it beated kasparov!
>>>>
>>>>Well kasparov also lost from genius somewhere in 1989 already, genius
>>>>at a 286 or something?
>>>>
>>>>>On August 25, 2001 at 20:47:44, Mig Greengard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry to dredge this up yet again, and ignore this rather than turn it into a
>>>>>>flame war or something worse. I know feelings on this topic can run hot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Although we do not have enough of Deep Blue's games to make anywhere near an
>>>>>>accurate assessment of its chess strength, I am requesting a summary of thoughts
>>>>>>on how today's top programs measure up on a science level. In the past I've seen
>>>>>>some admirably objective breakdowns on this topic from Bob Hyatt and a few
>>>>>>others, but did not save them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Put Deep Fritz, or other top programs, on the best available platform on which
>>>>>>they can run, and I imagine this is what they will have in Bahrain, and knowing
>>>>>>what we do about DB, what comparisons can we make?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Subjective arguments (chess knowledge in particular) are also welcome, but
>>>>>>should be concise as opposed to argumentative!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks, Mig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Editor-in-chief
>>>>>>http://www.kasparovchess.com
>>>>>
>>>>>Expect great foolishness on both sides of the fence.
>>>>>You will hear:
>>>>>The best chess engine of all time (my position, but I may very well be wrong)
>>>>>You will hear:
>>>>>"My amateur engine could beat its pants off"
>>>>>
>>>>>Since we don't have access to Deep Blue, it is all pure speculation.  The answer
>>>>>to all of our questions about Deep Blue is rooted in data.  Data is what is
>>>>>missing, so we really have no answers.
>>>>>
>>>>>To look at a game and say:
>>>>>"By looking at the quality of this move, I recognize that Deep Blue is sheer
>>>>>genius!"
>>>>>You might be looking at the output of a BUG in the software.
>>>>>
>>>>>We might puzzle mightily at some move that looks dumb.  "Look at this boneheaded
>>>>>move!"
>>>>>But Deep Blue saw something all the null movers trim out, and would not see if
>>>>>they ran their programs for a year.
>>>>>
>>>>>In short, if you expect reliable responses that have scientific value, don't
>>>>>hold your breath.  On the other hand, you should get plenty of stuff if you are
>>>>>interested in "Yellow Journalism."
>>>>>;-)
>>>
>>>Mr. Vincent Diepeveen , if you won't talk intelligently about Deep Blue II
>>>then please shutup!
>>>
>>>You know better or should know better! I've heard this idiotic arguement by
>>>you again and again, I really don't know how IBM's Deep Blue team can keep
>>>silent in view of your skewed data!
>>>
>>>I hope Dr. Robert Hyatt, can somehow put your distortion of Deep Blue's
>>>ability to rest, but somehow I think that's impossible due to the fact
>>>you like to continue to lie about Deep Blue II's ability/inability!
>>
>>I believe that he does not lie about Deep blue II.
>>lying is not only saying wrong things.
>>lying is saying things that you believe that they are wrong.
>>
>>Saying things that other people told you that they are wrong is not lying if you
>>do not believe the other people. He knows better Uri!
>>
>>>You're full of it, and thousands know it, so why continue?
>>>Who do you think you're kidding?
>>>Deep Blue II is _not_ 2800, but hell, it sure is over 2600+ period, and no
>>>commercial programme can boast true Super GM strength!
>>
>>It is not clear. BS!
>>Tiger and Junior did super GM performance in tournaments.
>>
>> It's truly stronger
>>>than any commercial programme on todays' hardware, PC class, or 8-Way
>>>Box.
>>
>>It is not proved. Nonsense!
>>You have the right to have your opinion and other people may have different
>>opinions.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Opinions are just that...opinions, but facts are facts and the Deep Blue II's
>log files reveal many facts.
>
>Mr. Diepeveen, outright lies, knowing these facts!
>
>TM

You never studied the log files i think. they're full of weird
and very bad positional lines. We definitely can conclude that
deep blues positional ability were at gnuchess level.

just saying i'm an asswhole is not a very nice viewpoint
Terry.

Please analyse and note that i'm only quoting bad moves from deep blue
which are seen as beginner moves by GM Seirawan and GM v/d Wiel too.

So you not only say i'm an asshole, you also say it from them at
the same time!





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.