Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:09:12 10/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2002 at 16:59:54, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On October 10, 2002 at 15:55:32, Uri Blass wrote: > >>Deep blue did not see Qe3 in the main line based on the logfiles of IBM. >>A lot of programs of today can see it with no problem. >> >>Some programs can even see the move Kh1 instead of Kf1 of Deep blue(I did not >>check the last deep Fritz but previous Deep Fritz is one of them). >> >>It is not a proof that deep blue is weaker but it is an evidence that Deep >>blue's evaluation is inferior. >> >>Good evaluation is not about knowing the truth(that you cannot know) but about >>giving a better estimate and it seems that the top programs of today get better >>decisions based on positional reasons. > >In Hsu's book, there is a large section about the 1997 match, going through >game-by-game. It's very surprising how many evaluation bugs they found, and >there's no doubt there were many more. The full DB2 never played a serious game >before the 1997 match, either, so it's inevitable that things weren't tuned to >the best possible accuracy. It's hard to compare something like that to a >commercial program of today, which plays thousands of testing games and the >programmers have as long as they want to tune each parameter. > >DB2 only played 6 games in its lifetime. To compare its positional strength to >anything based on those games is meaningless. Or if you really want, I can >easily find 6 games where some commercial program was completely clueless >positionally. :) It simply shows that DB was very resiliant _and_ strong. It was barely put together in time for the match, yet it managed to win. I did _exactly_ the same thing in 1983 when we won the WCCC event. We had not played a complete game prior to round 1. In fact, as I drove to New York, Harry Nelson was in Minneapolis at Cray headquarters helping them fix a multiprocessing bug in their operating system we had found. We started round 1 never having played more than 2-3 moves in a row. And the program performed flawlessly for five rounds and won outright... DB was very strong, regardless of what others say. To say Fritz is stronger is a joke, and a bad one at that. Based on what? DB _did_ beat Kasparov. Fritz is getting squeezed beyond imagining. I think that the DB accomplishment was remarkable, and all the more so after reading Hsu's book which accounts for the year prior to "the match" in 1997.
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.