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.