Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:43:39 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 15:30:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I agree. There are three positions someone can take on the DB issue. I will >list them and then pick the one I like: > >1. DB sucks and is worse than today's micros. > >2. DB is invincible and is so far above today's micros it is not worth > discussing. > >3. There is ample evidence that older versions of the thing were invincible > when they were playing. And the newest version did something nobody else > has repeated, yet (beating Kasparov in a match). This leads me to believe > that they certainly are ahead of today's machines, until one of today's > machines shows some evidence of catching up to them. > >I fall in category 3 above. Several fall in category 1. Category 2 isn't >really worth talking about. I would personally be just as happy as anything >if the (1) group would just remain silent. Because (1) is not supportable by >any evidence other than prejudice. I think there is a lot to be learned from >the machine, and it will be learned over time... There are some people in and around this field who are in the first camp. These people will waste your time if allowed. Please don't accuse me with these people. I think that your third category is also too much of a stretch. You are trying to extrapolate along too many axes. Older versions of DB were not invincible. The thing in Hong Kong lost a point and a half playing against micros running on 100 mhz Pentiums. The Kasparov match was very weird and I don't think it makes sense to take anything from that. If there were more data-points against humans, it might make sense to make conclusions about that, but we have none. I think it is logical to suspect that DB would be very strong against modern micros on modern hardware. But lack of *any* concrete evidence precludes any conclusion. IBM would have you believe that this event had something to do with science, but it had nothing at all to do with science. It was a giant publicity stunt, and once they got what they wanted they weren't willing to do even one tiny bit of science with the thing. No data came out of that project. All that it generated was PR. I refuse to even entertain the notion that it's a good idea to use science or math or logic to somehow manufacture evidence that can be used in order to proclaim them as permanent kings of the computer chess world. They could have provided a huge amount of data in a single afternoon, but instead they provided nothing. What should be concrete and provable is turned into a matter of religion, where nothing is provable and everything must be taken on faith. This is not how science is supposed to work, and scientists are not supposed to condone that kind of crap. IBM dicked over this field, all because they wanted to save money that would have otherwise been spent on a single commercial shown during the Super Bowl. bruce
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.