Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:37:18 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2001 at 15:25:47, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Until 20 years ago humans thought that in KQ vs KR the king and rook _must_ stay together for best defense. After a computer demonstrated that this is not correct, humans _finally_ figured out why. The number of things humans are not going to understand is going to go _up_ and not _down_ over the next 20 years. If you think that just because a human can't understand something, it can't be correct, then humans are going to get wrecked by a _lot_ of "incorrect" play over the next 20+ years and beyond.
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.