Author: David Dory
Date: 05:50:28 11/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2002 at 05:30:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 13, 2002 at 05:05:28, David Dory wrote: > >>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". > >I do not think that it was a good move. >This move was not typical to computers but we have no proof that it was better >than the typical computer move. > >Uri Well, the move stunned GK, and DB2 won the match. I strongly suspect DB2 DID in fact, make some good moves! I'm always bemused at the "analysis" or "critique" of a chess game or move by people who's OTK elo is hundreds less than the actual players of the game involved. You may study a move or game for a very long time, and come to some conclusion about it's quality, but that's NOT how the player's decided their moves. All their moves were made in tournament time - not after leisurely study, and with the help of perhaps 2 or 3 other chess programs to assist. 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.