Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 11:36:55 04/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2002 at 13:13:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 09, 2002 at 10:59:12, Mike Hood wrote: > >>On April 09, 2002 at 09:51:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 09, 2002 at 06:28:34, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On April 08, 2002 at 22:59:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 08, 2002 at 21:48:25, Michael Vox wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 08, 2002 at 20:24:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>And if he were going to face Deeper Blue instead of Fritz, which would he claim is the stronger?< >>>>>> >>>>>>He already stated at the initial press conference that he feels Fritz on current >>>>>>hardware is stronger than DB. >>>>>> >>>>>>This commone knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That is utter horse-hockey. AKA marketing hype and covering himself in case >>>>>the unexpected happens and he loses... >>>> >>>>Do you know names of GM's who say after looking at the games of deeper blue >>>>against kasparov that Deeper blue is better? >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>Who won the match? That is the important data. When another program does >>>the same in a 40/2hr match of 6 games, then we can talk... >> >>I agree with you in part, Robert. Deep Blue vs Kasparov, the score sheet speaks >>for itself. My main contention concerning Deep Blue is that it was not allowed >>to play more games against other grandmasters and (this would be more relevant >>in 2002 than in 1997) against other computers. This has led to bloated estimates >>of Deep Blue's playing strength. I am sure that Anand, despite being "only" the >>world's second best player in 1997, is a better anti-computer player, and a >>series of Deep Blue vs Anand games would have relativised Deep Blue's abilities. >> >>I have no criticism of Deep Blue as an entity, but I am very critical of IBM's >>use of Deep Blue. As soon as the matches against Kasparov were won they couldn't >>dismantle the hardware fast enough. "Let's quit while we're ahead". What were >>they afraid of? Evidently IBM weren't as confident of Deep Blue's strength as >>they claimed to be. > > >Remember several important details: > >1. Deep Thought produced a 2650+ rating over 25 consecutive games against >GM players in 40 move/2hr games. These games were played in tournaments, not >matches. That was deep thought. > >2. Deep Blue 1 (and deep blue junior) played _lots_ of games vs GM players >at various exhibitions. I went to two consecutive SuperComputing conferences >(We had ACM events at these conferences several times) and DB Jr was playing >exhibitions against GM players at both. I watched it thrash Robert Byrne at >one, for example, in 4 consecutive games. > >3. Deep Blue 2 was barely completed prior to the 1997 Kasparov match. They >didn't play any games with it prior to the match, except for what they could >do to test the hardware... > >4. Deep Thought searched maybe 2M nodes per second. DB2 was 100x faster. >DB2 was far "smarter" also, according to documents published by Hsu after the >event. If Deep Thought could produce a 2650 rating at 2M nodes per second, >how strong do you think DB2 might be? Against humans? maybe 2700?, maybe the 2650 figure for Deep thought was overrated considering the "surprise factor" or the null preparation against a computer those GM might have had. Who knows? On the other hand, I believe that elo performance with increasing speed does not correlate in the same way that in comp vs comp. Then again, is there any reliable data about what I just said? In favor or against? I doubt it. Miguel
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.