Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 09:18:45 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2001 at 11:46:09, K. Burcham wrote: > > so i have concluded after lots of time analyzing deep blue positions > that todays programs seem to be very close or equivelant to deep > blue in playing strength. The problem with DB and the main reason why this debate has been going on since the start of CCC is that theres just not enough data. 6 games doesn't seem to be enough to get a decent idea to compare DB to others. So people start making all kinds of assumptions, and arrive at even more shaky conclusions. I personally do not believe that the top comps of today are equivalent to DB as far as search is concerned. This is based on the data I have seen and what I know of DB's design and search. As for eval, well, I think that is another matter. While DB no doubt had a very sophisticated eval, and contained more than nowadays micros can do, I'm not sure if it was tuned as well as todays comps are. They may have had a team of grandmasters and good programmers, I think tuning a top program is something that must be done over time and based on loads and loads of games. It is wellknown that DB wasn't actually 'final' when it played Kasparov. So their tuning wasn't probably all that great either. The 'smart' parts of the eval may have interacted in a less than ideal way. Whether or not that added up to something that was weaker or stronger than current top is something I don't know. Nobody else here knows either. And you won't be able to tell from 6 games, no matter how long you argue (its 5 years and counting...). Fact is, DB did what it was supposed to do. It beat Kasparov and generated a huge amount of publicity. Robert may not like the fact that many people (I won't call names, you know who you are) like to compare their programs to DB or even say they're better to build onto the huge amount of publicity DB generated. But somehow this is justified. Not because their programs are stronger, but because DB disappeared after it gave the impression comps topped humans. But a champion is not champion if he does not play. Deep Blue is the Fischer of computer chess. He did something cool, disappeared and left the rest of the world arguing instead of moving on. The Fritz match will be interesting. If Fritz beats Kramnik, that'll be a very good argument against DB. But I expect Kramnik to toast the comp actually. What bothers me about that match is that they made it look like Kramniks demands were redicolously unfair, so the meaning of the match in the comp/human/Kasparov/DB debate is reduced, but it seems that they aren't going to abide by the terms anyway. This is probably good...It'll do Kramnik more justice when he toasts it even then. Oh, and if Hsu publishes his book, that will also be very intersting of course...but when, if ever? > in other words i am looking for any positions > that my system will not choose deep blues next move. or does > not see deep blues next move as an equivelant eval. [D]r4bk1/5rpp/1Bppbp2/4n3/N7/1PP5/P1B2RPP/4R1K1 b - - 7 27 From DB's ancestor. You need to a) find the best move (easy)b) find that it wins a knight (eval >2.xx) within 3 minutes The 3 minutes should actually be divided with the speed difference between DB and Deep Thought. -- GCP
This page took 0.05 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.