Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:13:02 10/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
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). > >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. > totally wrong impression. Deep Thought II produced a 2600 TPR against GMs in 25 consecutive games to claim the fredkin 2 prize. Searching about 3M nodes per second. The real DB junior has 16 chess processors searching roughly 2M nodes per second each, which is about 16x faster than Deep Thought, and two generations later in the eval area, which was the significant change from Deep Blue 1 (first Kasparov match) to Deep Blue 2 (second Kasparov match). I got to see DB Jr play two demo matches vs two different GM's and both were simple drubbings of the GM players. The games I personally saw were not 40/2, they are game/30 or game/60, where computers already are known to do well. But DB Jr made it look easy against Byrne... >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. I would have never guessed that... But Friedel's post was well out of line, as he ought to have asked Hsu if it was ok to post it 'paraphrased' as he did. Although I really doubt that they do care what any commercial (or amateur) folks think about how they play. It was pretty obvious in NY, that they aren't weak. I think the best approach would have been for Ed to remove the claim as soon as the details became known. I asked Hsu, and posted his explanation about what DB Jr really was at the WCCC. He later supplied _exactly_ the same details to Friedel (which was then posted on Gambitsoft's site and then copied to Ed's site). I think that the DB project is important enough that such claims ought to be corrected when they are wrong... > >Amir
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.