Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: My conversation with Hsu.......

Author: Ricardo Gibert

Date: 22:14:12 02/25/02

Go up one level in this thread


On February 26, 2002 at 00:09:42, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On February 25, 2002 at 15:34:43, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On February 25, 2002 at 15:08:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On February 25, 2002 at 13:17:22, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 25, 2002 at 10:35:00, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I was recently in contact with Hsu, where I asked him if there was anyway that
>>>>>he would either a.) sell the technology in DB or b.) donate this information to
>>>>>someone (Hyatt comes to mind) who would put it to use and keep it safe from
>>>>>being commercial use.
>>>>>
>>>>>Basically he told me he only bought the rights to rematch Kaspy (who refused).
>>>>>And to keep IBM off his back, if he decided to make a Shogi engine.  Period.  No
>>>>>other reasons.  He will never sell/commercialize/donate/share his information.
>>>>>Ever.
>>>>>
>>>>>What a terrible, terrible dissappointment.
>>>>
>>>>Not disappointment for me
>>>>I guess that the thing is simply not strong enough.
>>>
>>>That is absolutely the _worst_ reasoning I have ever seen.  Do you also
>>>guess that when it rains when you have something planned, that the clouds
>>>have something against you?
>>>
>>>It was strong enough to smash computer programs for a long while.  It was
>>>strong enough to beat kasparov in a 6 game match.  I'll bet _other_ engine
>>>authors wish theirs was "not that strong"...
>>
>>I said *is* not strong enough and not *was* not strong enough
>
>Hsu has already written that his chess chip in .18 micron would search around
>30M nodes per second.  I think everyone would find that plenty strong enough
>since it is 15 times faster than quad boxes...

30M NPS and an EBF=4 will search a little less deeply as 1M NPS and EBF=3. At 2M
NPS...

>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>IE they didn't win most every ACM event after 1986 because of of luck...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is not clear if the result of deeper blue against kasparov is better than the
>>>>result of Rebel against van wely if you remember that van wely trained a lot
>>>>against rebel before the match when kasparov could not train against something
>>>>similiar to deeper blue.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>
>>>There's _still_ quite a jump from van Wely to Kasparov...  And van Wely wasn't
>>>playing for a $1,000,000 prize either.
>>
>>I agree that kasparov is clearly better than van wely but van wely admitted that
>>he trained by playing 100 games against Rebel and the question in comparing the
>>results is how much elo you can get by preparing against a known computer and
>>not only against computers.
>>
>>The 1000000$ prize did not help kasparov to play better.
>
>I disagree.  It was a _strong_ motivation.  I would work _much_ harder to
>win 1M dollars than I would to win 1000.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>He played well in 4 of the games but in the games that he lost he did  mistakes
>>that he usually does not do against humans.
>>
>>Kasparov never resigned in a drawn position against humans and he simply
>>believed that the machine is stonger than it's real strength(I guess that he
>>believed that Qe3 cannot be a draw because the machine could not blunder to let
>>him a tactical draw so he did not check it when it was clear that it had better
>>position)
>>
>>Uri
>
>
>
>I won't try to speculate on what he did or didn't think.  But your idea doesn't
>make much sense.  Why would he assume that some position was won,
>and then assume that the machine wouldn't make a mistake and allow a perp by
>Qe3?  If that were true, wouldn't he have simply resigned at the start of the
>game rather than playing on?



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.