Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 01:32:11 11/13/02
This was article was copied from, Mig is the editor-in-chief of KasparovChess.com. "So we know that Deep Blue was much faster than anything around today, even hundreds of times faster. But does that mean better? You can always count on Amir Ban to cut through the hot air and he does so admirably here, "I've written on this several times, and to summarize my position, it is that a machine that is much better than all the others must be shown to play an objectively good move that the others don't, or at least the others need much more time to play it. During the debate the supporters of Deep Blue's exceptional strength were asked to name such a move, but failed to show anything convincing. This was the situation even in 1997, when PCs and engines were weaker. If Deep Blue did not play in its entire career a move that shows exceptional depth, then I'm not prepared to believe it had it (and if it had it, it was a wasted career)." In other words, Deep Blue, put up or shut up! Falling back on theory and one fluke result of six games is no substitute for empirical evidence. From the hard data we have we know that Deep Blue's potential was far beyond what current programs on current hardware are capable of. What we don't know is if this potential was ever realized in the quality of its chess, and we won't know as long as DB remains mothballed. (A Deep Blue Jr. is still around and has made sporadic appearances.) My thanks to Prof. Hyatt, Amir Ban, and everyone in the Computer Chess Club discussion group for their input and views."
This page took 0.02 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.