Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:33:13 01/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2003 at 03:51:26, Frank Phillips wrote: >On January 11, 2003 at 19:23:20, Omid David Tabibi 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. >>> >>>If only Hsu had produced his chip so we could have answered this question rather >>>than use it to fires. >>> >> >>If say Deep Blue was 100x faster than Deep Junior, then I suggest that you >>conduct the following test: >> >>Take an engine which has a very simple evaluation function, and its speed (NPS) >>is about Junior's speed, turn off all its selectivity (e.g. null-move pruning, >>futility pruning, etc), and let it play against Deep Junior. The time control >>should be 100x in favor of the brute force engine, e.g. 500 min/game for the >>brute force one, and 5 min/game for Deep Junior. >> >>I will gladly bet on a convincing win for Deep Junior. >> >> >>>Good luck to Junior and team in the coming match. >>> >>>Frank > >So would I. > >This assumes that Deep Blue had a simple evaluation function and no selectivity. > It also assumes that it had an evaluation function that is simpler than >Junior's. I am questioning (from the limited I know) whether this is true. So >I cannot see that the experiment you suggest proves anything about Deep Blue. > >(BTW I am not concluding that Deep Blue had a better evaluation function than >Junior, merely asking for evidence to substantiate Levy's claim that Junior's >evaluation of chess positions offsets any hardware advantage, including its >allegedly inferior evaluation, Deep Blue might have had. ). > >Frank It is just rambling speculation on Levy's part, since he has never seen the code, no more than anyone else not on the team has... And we also know DB _did_ have selectivity, at least in the hardware part of the search, which further confuses the comparison...
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.