Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:25:47 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2001 at 12:18:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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 position was discussed a long time ago in CCC The conclusion of me and Amir Ban and a lot of other people was that black does not win a piece because no human could prove that it wins a piece. If you want to find an impressive move of Deep thought then you need to find something that humans can understand. If humans cannot understand that it is winning a piece after going forward and backward with their program then the argument is not convincing. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.