Deep blue answers-Part I (Caution, possibly on topic!)
Keith Ian Price
I just got back from a lecture on Deep Blue given at Oregon Graduate
Institute by Feng Hsiung Hsu, and was able to ask him many questions
after the presentation. Since a lot of unanswered questions have been
debated on rgcc and CCC, I thought I would ask him about several of
these subjects. It's late so I will mention a couple and add the rest
tomorrow.
1. As to whether there will ever be a rematch or a match with someone
else such as Vishy Anand or Karpov, Hsu stated that the chances are
"slim to none". In his view the program is only marginally better than
Kasparov at present, and in order to have a rematch, they would have
to make it much better than Kasparov, so that they would be able to
guarantee a win. He stated that no one on the team wanted to put that
amount of effort into it, since the history-making goal had already
been achieved.
2. The draw in Game two never showed up on DB's screen as a
possibility. After the game, Hsu went to bed thinking that DB had
played the most brilliant game ever played by a computer. When he woke
up the next morning and checked the Internet, he saw "Kasparov misses
draw in game 2." At first he thought, "they just won't believe that DB
could win, and it's just sour grapes." But when he ran it on DB, Jr.
for quite a while, the possibility showed up, but he still thought
there was a way to avoid the perpetual, although to do it, would mean
losing enough advantage to make it a draw anyway. He never ran the
position on DB, since between-rounds maintenance was being done.
3. DB was dismantled right after the match because the SP2 processors
used during the match were part of an order that was shipped right
after the match. The SP2 was a brand new unit, and the upgrade orders
had left none for DB's use, so the SP2s used in the match were from a
lot donated by IBM to the NIH, and were shipped to them immediately
following the match. The frames were kept for historical reasons. The
Smithsonian has expressed interest in having Deep Blue on display some
day, and that is where the frames may show up, with new SP2s
installed.
4. There are no plans for a "commercial" version of Deep Blue from
IBM, although Hsu is trying to get the rights to the chess processors.
If he does, he may consider doing a commercially available product
that would run on a PC and have a chess processor on a card to plug
in. He considers it risky, though. I asked how much each unit would
sell for if he were to sell 1 million. He said that with that amount
of sales, he could sell the program and board for under $200. I also
asked about if only 10,000 were sold. He said then it would be around
$400. I told him I would buy 3 at that price, and that I suspect there
are others who would also. The real problem is that he could not call
it DB or even Baby Blue. IBM would not want to be associated with it
if they gave him the rights. So a lot of quick advertising would not
be available, which could generate the mass sales needed to get the
under $200 price.
Ok, it's late, and although I have a lot more, it will have to wait
till tomorrow :-(.
kp
-----------------------------------------------------------------
kp
Rolf Tueschen
kpr...@spamfree.teleport.com (Keith Ian Price) wrote:
>I just got back from a lecture on Deep Blue given at Oregon Graduate
>Institute by Feng Hsiung Hsu, and was able to ask him many questions
>after the presentation. Since a lot of unanswered questions have been
>debated on rgcc and CCC, I thought I would ask him about several of
>these subjects. It's late so I will mention a couple and add the rest
>tomorrow.
>1. As to whether there will ever be a rematch or a match with someone
>else such as Vishy Anand or Karpov, Hsu stated that the chances are
>"slim to none". In his view the program is only marginally better than
>Kasparov at present, and in order to have a rematch, they would have
>to make it much better than Kasparov, so that they would be able to
>guarantee a win.
Stop it. Stop it. Alarm. Alarm. Help. Help.
Folks of the community.
If there were doubts that the DB teamsters, but in first place their
chairman Feng Hsu were ignorants and real impostors in our game of
chess --- then this little quote from KIP should have clarified.
I for one am sure, if Hsu has said it as KIP gives the quote here,
that Hsu a) doesn't know anything seeper in chess and its greatest
players and b) must be in reverse that kind of person our Bob Hyatt
had painted out of Kasparov.
To even dream of the possibility -- after the ham act in May 97 --
that Deep Blue might have been *slightly* *better* than Kasparov is
scientifically false and foolish too and, in view of the spooky
conditions Kasparov had pointed out, sort of suicidal attempt of the
bean counters (to omit the magic word Fach-Idiot).
Now at last I can see the extent of that lacking understanding of
ingenious specialized technicians in computerchess for an attractive
foreign field (=chess).
Now I feel a great compassion with Bob Hyatt, whom I had attacked for
off-topic idiocies long enough. He at least has shown often enough
that he knows how to estimate the strength of the machines (micros or
super power DB). He has NEVER propagated that the actual Deep Blue
were stronger than the human champ. The main problem for him in the
past 11 months must have been the knowledge that his off-topic
idiocies now had reached the inner kernel of the holy grail like a
tremendous epidemic.
And I'm standing there --
tears in my eyes --
crying about another
human dream biting the dust --
due to naked impostordom
of some humans
who became victims of their greed
for recognition
and possibly the big money too ...
(Kipje, please tell me it's only a dream
and that it's the 1st of April and not May.)
Keith Ian Price
> kpr...@spamfree.teleport.com (Keith Ian Price) wrote:
>> Hsu stated that the chances are
> >"slim to none". In his view the program is only marginally better than
> >Kasparov at present, and in order to have a rematch, they would have
> >to make it much better than Kasparov, so that they would be able to
> >guarantee a win.
>
>
> Stop it. Stop it. Alarm. Alarm. Help. Help.
<snipped various strange ways of saying that the above posted comments
of Hsu cannot be true...>
> (Kipje, please tell me it's only a dream
> and that it's the 1st of April and not May.)
>
This statement came not from direct question and answer, but was part
of his presentation. He stated that in order to have a chance of
beating Kasparov, the team felt that they could not just be equal in
strength to GK but must be slightly stronger, in order to overcome his
ability to exploit discovered weaknesses in the later games as shown
in the February match. Therefore, it might be just the company line.
My impression, however, is that he believes it, and the statement
about having to make it much better was in response to the question of
whether there would be a rematch.
Rolfje, I'm surprised at you. You shouldn't have said "Alarm. Alarm.
Help. Help." Today it should have been "MAYDAY! MAYDAY!" ;-)
Now, I've got to go and type up part II...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
kp
Rolf Tueschen
kpr...@spamfree.teleport.com (Keith Ian Price) wrote:
>On Fri, 1 May 1998 11:10:50, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
>(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>> kpr...@spamfree.teleport.com (Keith Ian Price) wrote:
>>> Hsu stated that the chances are
>> >"slim to none". In his view the program is only marginally better than
>> >Kasparov at present, and in order to have a rematch, they would have
>> >to make it much better than Kasparov, so that they would be able to
>> >guarantee a win.
>>
>>
>> Stop it. Stop it. Alarm. Alarm. Help. Help.
><snipped various strange ways of saying that the above posted comments
>of Hsu cannot be true...>
KIPJE, but I'm right in my guess/assumption that you are a natural
born American?
Can't believe it. Because your language is so ambiguous. But perhaps
it's only a weakness of thinking.
See, what does that mean "cannot be true"? That your quotes were
false? Or that Hsu made rather false statements?
I see that I probably relied to fast on your abilities to quote what
he exactly said ...
BTW you're still in my memory for your tendency to state completely
false conclusions.
In our case here it's a real difference if Hsu had said that he must
be stronger than K. to be able to beat him in a match ... or if he had
said that they were already slightly better right now ...
The latter is obviously on what I commented sceptically, no, with
laughter.
Let's see the first one. It's also a very stupid statement. Very
stupid. Bob Hyatt did it better and still does.
Kipje, if I'm better than NN, slightly or very slightly is not the
point, then I will win against NN. Period.
But Hsu might be poisoned with the usual Elo crap.
Take K. at 2790. Then surely Hsu cant beat K. if DB had 2795. Perhaps
he meant that he needed something like 2850.
But now comes my uppercut.
There is NO machine/program actually on earth with a sound ELO!!
Yes, Kipje. You heard it. I mean it what you heard. :))
Read Bob Hyatt. He knows that better than me. But you can get an Elo
ONLY if you took part in Elo tournaments of the FIDE. Or let's weaken
that to "tournaments with Elo rated humans".
And not for 5 games. Not 12 games, but at least some hundreds, ok?
And what doesn't function is this. You make a new version of your
program, take the "old" Elo and enter again. No way. That's the usual
cheat with all the "Elo" for programs/machines.
Thousands of inbreeding games comp vs comp won't do either.
If I were K. then I would only accept a programe/machine for a title
match that had already many many games in Elo tournaments ...
Kipje, it doesn't function to create a monster, let it play some 200
games agains our man in Habana, Benjamin, and then state an Elo mark
of say 2688. This is bullshit. Mayday. Mayday.
A little update of an idea I once had for Bob hyatt but had forgotten
at the time.
A fallacy in Bob's care for Deep Blue
==============================
Perhaps you remember. Bob had taught us that Kasparov had the
possibility to seek help with his guys between rounds.
Therefore the tweaking of DB through the human staff should be allowed
and justified.
But I say, halt, stehen bleiben! Mayday.
K. as a champ could at best be advised with some opening lines or such
analysis. But you must agree that nobody could tell him about the way
to play chess, no? Because who should know better than a champ how to
play the game??
With DB it's a completely different story. If there human GMs
intervene, then this is cheating. They might give some opening lines.
Why not. But they can't change the "personality" of that cold monster.
Simply because Friedel couldn't change Kasparov into Karpov filigree.
kasparov will never be able to play like karpov and vice versa.
Or let that damn thing play some hundred games in tournaments. And
then let 'em tweak. But that same monster. Not a very new one. A newer
one had again seek a good Elo in tournaments ... Period.
If we would seek consensus for that mode, the whole bubble will stop.
Fritz5 now at 2600? Then Fritz5 plays in Melle (Germany) and, boing,
Fritz5 is a real GM. Nonononononono.
Let Fritz5 play some 300 games against masters and GMs. And then let
see the record. Do you want to know what I expect?
Yes, the rating will be much lower. Very low. Because the GMs will
play in the end only the weaknesses of that robot. And believe me.
There're enough of them for the next two or three decades ...
The way they do it right now is cheating. Period.
And they go away with it because uneducated humans don't understand
that 5 games can't give you a real Elo number.
So, back to Hsu.
What he needs is a brand new "black box" and another 5 games against
the champ. And many many distractions for the human opponent.
Lobsters. TV/Hollywood. Frederic Friedel instead of Rolf ... :)
And in the end K. will sell his private title (NOT the one of the
FIDE) for a nice living with some more millions ...
But even then. I would NOT call the machine stronger than K.
Since when _gambling_ was part of the game of chess????
Hsu is busted. QED.
The Cool Pope Of RGCC
(c/o Rolfje)