Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Some facts about Deep Thought / Deep Blue

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 11:07:20 08/29/01

Go up one level in this thread


On August 29, 2001 at 13:59:01, Joshua Lee wrote:

>>Unfortunately I found only one volunteer to help me to
>>analyze the positions that deeper blue pondered and
>>I am not going to use more than 20 hours of computer time
>>per week to analyze.
>>
>>Uri
>
>I would be glad to help as i said before but there is one problem, I know that i
>have seen the analysis of different positions in which a commercial will find
>the move played however we would have to go through the log files alot closer
>than you think as some moves are given in the mainline of others.
>For example i posted recently about Deeper Blue playing h5 when it saw this at
>11/6 from 3 or 4 moves earlier so this will probably show to require much more
>time than we think...........But when you think about the draw missed by
>Kasparov this should've come up in the pv from earlier moves but i didn't see
>it, It is supposed to be too deep for DB so when micros find this move can they
>be picking it for the wrong reasons ? If not then clearly Deep Blue searched
>positions differently and better, for example several times a top commercial
>will find the correct move in the pv for test sets yet change it's mind.
>
>If we are going to do this it should be under strict rules agreed apon by people
>who think deeper blue is stronger and those that do not. I don't know if
>Prof. Hyatt would participate or not but i think if he would this would bring
>closeure for the time being ...atleast untill either the DF-Kramnik match and or
>DB being ressurected to play weather that be against DF or any other program.


I think it is a pointless experiment.  For those that don't want to accept DB
for what it was, _nothing_ is going to change their mind.  They will keep
finding new excuses as to why some finding is in error.

Any program that could produce a 2655 rating over 25 consecutive games to win
the Fredkin GM prize, and then have a successor with 25X as many circuits and
100X the speed, _must_ be a strong chess player.  There is no way on earth I
can see how it could be weaker than today's best programs.  That statement
boggles the mind, IMHO.



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.