Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:51:24 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2001 at 23:37:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. The main problem is the fact that humans together with programs ,time and the game could not understand the evaluation of Deep thought. If Hsu has Deep blue Junior that is supposed to be better than Deep thought then I invite him to prove the +2 evaluation against one of the top programs when he gives the top program some hours per move. I am interested to know what he thinks today about that position. Does he think that Deep thought really outsearched Cray blitz by 20 plies or does he think that Deep thought had a bug in the evaluation that caused it to believe that it wins material(maybe it had a big positional score)? I believe that Cray blitz was better than Deep thought and I think that Deep thought was simply lucky to get a position when Cray blitz blundered because it was more easy to find the right moves for Deep thought and not to find the right moves for Cray blitz. 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.