Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:12:20 01/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2003 at 08:51:18, Frank Phillips wrote: >On January 11, 2003 at 08:38:50, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 11, 2003 at 08:23:43, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>"The next question is, and many people are asking it, do we know how Deep Junior >>>compares in strength with Deep Blue? The really interesting thing, from the AI >>>point of view in general and for computer chess researchers in particular, is >>>that Deep Junior examines something like one percent of the number of positions >>>per second of Deep Blue. But despite this Deep Junior may well play better chess >>>because its "understanding" of the game is better. It appears to have more chess >>>knowledge and understanding in its evaluation function than Deep Blue did, and >>>this compensates for the difference in positions-per-second.." Extract from >>>Levy on Chessbase.com site >>> >>> >>>From what I read in Behind Deep Blue I find this surprising. But then again, I >>>no nothing about Junior other than it is an awesome program. >> >>I think that comparison between the quantity of evaluation is meaningless. >>The right comparison is comparison of the quality. >> >>It is easy to add a lot of knowledge without testing for bugs but the result >>will be a disaster. >> >>It is possible that the program that has more knowledge and understanding simply >>understands things wrong because of bugs or understand the wrong things. >> >>I think that discussion about Deep blue's evaluation is meaningless unless Deep >>blue team post the source code of their evaluation. >> >>people simply are not going to agree. >> >>If deeper blue post the source code of their evaluation then it will be possible >>to compare it by changing the source code of the free programs to have the same >>evaluation as deeper blue's evaluation and use games with fixed number of nodes >>per move. >> >>Uri > > >I agree. I do not understand therefore how Levy came to his conculsion. > >However, if I had to guess I would say that Deep Blue has more knowledge (it was > free in terms of calculation) and much of it seems to have been tuned by >Grandmasters. Hsu talks about Deep Blue going to Joel Benjamins chess school. >This is not necessarily the same as understanding (strange term), but I know >where I would put my money. > >I find your insistance that only Deep Blue publish their code, biased. It would >be interesting (although commercial sucide) to compare both evaluation >approaches against each other and in the way you describe. Levy offers no data >to backup his claim. Deep Blue not demonstrating it is better by publishing its >code, does not make Junior better. > >Frank Look to the many idiotic moves Deep Blue played and try all those positions on Junior. Then you'll know enough. Easy test nah? Levy as an IM knows more than enough from chess to judge the quality of the moves made by Deep Blue. I do not understand the comparision anyway. We do not compare a 1910 car with a 2002 car either. Now here you compare the 2 things. You compare deep blue. no nullmove, no good eval (for 1997 standards sufficient though) with the formula 1 cars that we build today. This is no compare. computerchess has progressed so much last few years. Best regards, Vincent
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.