Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 23:14:30 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2001 at 02:13:07, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 09, 2001 at 01:51:24, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > >Hsu hasn't worked for IBM for quite some time. AFAIK he's at Compaq... oops, >HP. :-) > >Dave Actually, now that I think about it, didn't Compaq sell off their processor stuff to Intel? Maybe he's there now. Dave
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.