Author: David Dory
Date: 02:05:28 11/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2002 at 04:32:11, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>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."
It's important to remember the basics here - Deep Blue is 1) a non-speaking
chess computer, and 2) is non-operational.
So asking DB to "put up or shut up", is quite telling of the writer's
intellectual grasp of the topic, of logic, or both.
The "supporters of deep blue" (whoever THEY may be), only had to ask GK about a
"good move db made". GK even alleged possible cheating with one very good DB
move, saying "no computer would make that move".
Despite all rants and raves, it seems impossible to really compare DB/DB2 with
CC's we have today.
We do know:
1) DB was the fastest CC ever made, including today.
2) DB would surely need to be updated to equal the efficiency of the best
software programs available today. Also, chess theory in the openings
has continued to advance, and again, DB would have to be updated.
3) DB2 has never been fully implemented - including the FPGA boards capacity
that was added for DB2.
It was a great ride while it lasted - rather like Bobby Fischer, at his best. I
find it ironic that DB actually decreased interest in CC after it beat GK.
David
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.