Author: Joshua Lee
Date: 11:52:31 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 14:07:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 13:59:01, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>>Unfortunately I found only one volunteer to help me to >>>analyze the positions that deeper blue pondered and >>>I am not going to use more than 20 hours of computer time >>>per week to analyze. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I would be glad to help as i said before but there is one problem, I know that i >>have seen the analysis of different positions in which a commercial will find >>the move played however we would have to go through the log files alot closer >>than you think as some moves are given in the mainline of others. >>For example i posted recently about Deeper Blue playing h5 when it saw this at >>11/6 from 3 or 4 moves earlier so this will probably show to require much more >>time than we think...........But when you think about the draw missed by >>Kasparov this should've come up in the pv from earlier moves but i didn't see >>it, It is supposed to be too deep for DB so when micros find this move can they >>be picking it for the wrong reasons ? If not then clearly Deep Blue searched >>positions differently and better, for example several times a top commercial >>will find the correct move in the pv for test sets yet change it's mind. >> >>If we are going to do this it should be under strict rules agreed apon by people >>who think deeper blue is stronger and those that do not. I don't know if >>Prof. Hyatt would participate or not but i think if he would this would bring >>closeure for the time being ...atleast untill either the DF-Kramnik match and or >>DB being ressurected to play weather that be against DF or any other program. > > >I think it is a pointless experiment. For those that don't want to accept DB >for what it was, _nothing_ is going to change their mind. They will keep >finding new excuses as to why some finding is in error. > >Any program that could produce a 2655 rating over 25 consecutive games to win >the Fredkin GM prize, and then have a successor with 25X as many circuits and >100X the speed, _must_ be a strong chess player. There is no way on earth I >can see how it could be weaker than today's best programs. That statement >boggles the mind, IMHO. I agree, but atleast doing this would give sceptics one less way to say DB is weaker! Ofcourse someone here must have connections to the team so i don't see why they haven't tried to convince the DB team to run some public games against Deep Fritz??? Also what about the DT code that's out there you don't have the hardware but it's in "C" so i don't know why it hasn't been discussed here. Just because you don't have the hardware doesn't mean that a glimpse into what the machine was thinking can't help. Or am i missing something. Thankyou BTW how about those Cray Blitz-Crafty games already :) Or maybe if you would explain how different the pv is between the two and how much ply crafty needed to win or draw instead of lose. And ofcourse what kind of hardware Crafty needs to compete equally with CB on it's cray.
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.