Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 18:10:10 10/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 1999 at 20:03:58, Amir Ban wrote: >On October 12, 1999 at 19:24:31, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On October 12, 1999 at 18:51:25, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On October 11, 1999 at 21:25:30, Manuel Rodriguez Blanco wrote: >>>> >>> >>>snip >>> >>>>Rebel Company about the accusations: >>>> >>>> >>>>We were not aware of any restriction that playing against Deep Blue Junior was >>>>forbidden. Deep Blue Junior was there and we took the opportunity to find out >>>>more about this program. The result was posted as NEWS no more no less and we >>>>don't have (nor had) any intention to include Rebel's victory over Deep Blue >>>>Junior in our advertisements. >>>> >>>> >>>>We can't confirm the "one second" time control of Deep Blue Junior. Deep Blue >>>>Junior indeed played on a "one second" time control using its default time >>>>control but raising the time control caused Deep Blue Junior to think a lot >>>>longer (up to 10-15 seconds). >>>> >>> >>>This point is important, and I didn't see it discussed. If so, Hsu is >>>misinformed about what features were made available to users of DBjr, and Rebel >>>played a version that was much stronger than he thought. I don't remember if >>>they played equal time controls, but if they did, it may well be that the >>>contest was fair or close to fair (we need to assume that the DBjr server was >>>not overloaded, which to me seems likely, because it was hardly used intensively >>>at the stations I saw in Paderborn). >> >>The run-on sentence "The program runs on a single chip, [has] a thinking time of >>one second per move (including initialization and independently of the thinking >>time set by the user interface), without permanent brain and using a primitive >>evaluation function." seems to discuss this point. (It also makes me wonder if >>the statement was translated into German for the magazine, then back into >>English. :-) >> > >This was said without taking into account Schroder's statement from above about >the time control. It seems to contradict what Hsu & Campbell say, unless you >make the improbable assumption that the interface asked for time control and >then emulated it while really thinking only one second (what for ?). It's more >probable that they weren't directly involved with setting up this demo and were >misinformed about its capabilities. The "impedance mismatch" between the back-end and the front-end does seem weird. Presumably they weren't involved in the creation of the interface. So the question is whether what the front-end shows is right, or the people who worked on the back-end are right. If they worked on the back-end, then I'll buy their explanation. It does seem quite illogical though, so the possibility you raise has some weight. Bob posted once that "Hsu was asked to..." set up the demo. So my belief boils down to "do I believe Bob?", and in this case, I do. >>>I wouldn't consider Rebel beating DBjr a surprise. Even assuming full-DB to be >>>the equal of Kasparov (doubtful), DBjr should be much weaker, and not more than >>>Rebel. Besides, isn't Rebel's record against rated players better than DBjr's ? >>>I don't know the statistics, but I got the impression that DBjr's record is not >>>too good. >> >>FWIW, I remember an article in Chess Life where GM Soltis annotated a game that >>he won over DBjr. IIRC, he said that in the several months it had been touring, >>only 2 other people had won a game. (Time control was G/15.) >> >>I did say FWIW, but I'll grant that it's probably not worth much. >> >>>I think it's pretty low to say or imply that Ed played DBjr for cheap publicity. >>>Obviously he did that out of curiosity. It would make better business sense to >>>concentrate on the WCCC rather than play improvised games in the hall, but >>>people who are curious do what is intersting, not important. It's clear from Hsu >>>& Campbell's letter and the clarification from Friedel that they are not curious >>>in the least, and that they don't give a damn about their peers respect. That's >>>a good enough reason not to respect them, and I don't. >>> >>>Amir >> >>I agree re: curiosity. I don't agree re: peers. Possibly your idea of who >>their peers are is different than mine. >> > >Their peers are people who take an interest in computer chess for its own sake, >or at least their fellow competitors. Ed is certainly one of their peers. > >Amir I think that if you work toward beating the world champion for a decade and finally accomplish it, only to have GK and a whack of others call you a cheater, it would be a natural reaction to start giving less weight to other people's opinions -- as a self-defence mechanism, if nothing else. All the same, I've met Murray Campbell and had one extended discussion with him. I've seen him interact with Tony Marsland and Jonathan Schaeffer. I've heard him answer all kinds of questions about DB. I've never received the impression that he didn't care about the respect of other people. He's always seemed like a very polite person to me. Some people believe DB is a cut (or ten) above the micros, while others don't agree. IBM doesn't let the machine play, which means that DB team members are not going to be able to convince remaining skeptics that DB is really strong... so why should they expend the effort? It would just be a futile exercise, and they're smart enough to know that. Both Hsu and Benjamin are apparently writing books... hopefully this will give us some more information. Dave
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.