Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:46:14 09/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
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. I don't agree with that. When I first played chiptest in 1987, we had a chance to win the game but a SMP bug in Cray Blitz caused it to play a poor move and lose. From that point on, I don't _ever_ recall having a real chance to beat them. They out-played us (and everyone else) at every event after that one. > >Uri
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.