Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 08:29:40 10/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2002 at 11:20:55, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 20, 2002 at 11:00:42, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On October 20, 2002 at 03:41:56, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 19, 2002 at 21:44:49, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>> >>>>I have just finished the book by Feng-Hsiung Hsu. In just a shot, from after >>>>lunch to this time, meal time. Very interesting. You cannot stop he reading. >>>>First big impression: if this guy and his team had worked just one year more on >>>>Deep Blue, Garry has been crushed to ashes, to atoms. Yes, because once and >>>>again Deep Blue appears as an uncomplete device full of bugs and problems, >>> >>> >>>I am surprised that after this people still believe that it's evaluation was >>>better than the evaluation of Deep Fritz of today. >> >>I'm surprised people still think it's evaluation was worse than Fritz of today. >>But it doesn't matter - I think DB will never play again (stupid IBM), so >>neither side can EVER win the argument. > >The main point is the following: >"Deep Blue appears as an uncomplete device full of bugs and problems" They did have a lot of bugs over the course of the development, but what does that have to do with the quality of the evaluation? >I do not believe that something that is full of bugs and problems can have >better evaluation than Deep Fritz that was tested more seriously. Almost all of the 'bugs' were not in the evaluation. Should I say Fritz has big evaluation 'bugs' because it completely misevaluates many positions? Should that be cause to say Fritz has worse evaluation than some other program(s)?
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.