Talk:Deep Blue (chess computer)/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi everyone. I was perusing the GAN list last week and was considering reviewing this article because it caught my interest. In real life, I am interested in computer science topics, so this is a topic that is particularly fascinating to me. After further review, I think there are a few additional issues with the article that need attention before the article can meet the good article criteria. Mz7 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Origins

• Overall, this section is written pretty well! The Hsu book looks like a really great source.

Y

• The third paragraph of the "Origins" section (the one beginning with "In 1995...") exclusively cites this primary source containing a tabulation of the results of the "8th World Computer Chess Championship". It seems like a number of the statements in this paragraph are not immediately verifiable through this link, such as the claim that "Fritz was running on an Intel Pentium 90 MHz" and the claim that Wchess and Junior were running on "personal computers". (It's also not clear what "personal computer" means in this context; we know what kind of computer specifically?)

N not sure what to do there Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 15:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is problematic because it means that some of the information is not verifiable (i.e. fails WP:V). I haven't looked too deeply, but it looks like if you click the name of each chess computer at that link, the website has some more information about them: see [1] for Fritz. Mz7 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Design

• Part of my interest in this article comes from my interest in computer science, and personally I think the biggest area where this article could be improved is its coverage of the science and technical design behind Deep Blue. There seems to be no scarcity of coverage out there regarding the technical design of this computer—surely more than can be summarized in two sentences. Given the importance of this computer expressed in the lead, I feel that an effort should be made to expand this section of the article in order to satisfy the "broadness" criterion of the good article criteria.

Y Done Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that the "Deep Blue versus Kasparov" section below contains a bit more detail about the design of the computer (i.e. discussing the microprocessor and the program's evaluation function)—moving those details into the "Design" subsection may be a good starting point.

Y Done, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 23:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Some other ideas for expansion: How was the design of this chess computer different from others? What are the specific features of the search algorithm's evaluation function? What techniques did the designers employ to optimize the algorithm for real-life application?

Y Done, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Deep Blue versus Kasparov

• The first paragraph of this section is unsourced. The second paragraph is also mostly unsourced, except for a single citation to this primary source. (I'm a little concerned with the reliance on primary sources in this article, but I suppose it's all right if there isn't any original research involved.)

Y

Unless I'm missing something, the first paragraph seems to still be unsourced? Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• As I stated in my "Design" section notes above, I think this section contains a number of details about the design of the computer that would fit better in the "Design" subsection, such as the paragraphs beginning with "The system derived..." and "Deep Blue's evaluation function..."

Y Done, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• This section could potentially include some additional commentary on the chess games themselves. There seems to be some of this at the Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov article, but admittedly that article is mostly just a copy-paste of the move list.

N ehh, dont think I should do that Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 21:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@The4lines: Out of curiosity, why? Just glancing through, it looks like you've done good work so far; the article looks improved from when I looked at it a few weeks ago. Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: Ah, because I thought that it may be boring for some users. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 19:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• • For example, Deep Blue won the deciding game after Kasparov made a mistake in the opening – what was the opening and what was the mistake? Any significant moves in the other games (I see there is that one "random" move mentioned later on)?

N Dont know what to do there.

• The last paragraph, which discusses the cheating allegations, solely cites this archived page from IBM's website, which contains links to commentaries on all six games. However, it is not immediately obvious to me (and to readers) where in the commentaries the cheating allegations are verified.

Y Done, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 21:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead cites multiple articles, including ones from the NY Daily News, Slate, and Mental Floss (admittedly I've not heard of Mental Floss, but I assume it's reliable). However, I noticed that these articles are not cited again in the body of the article. These seem like pretty good sources, so I recommend perhaps incorporating some of their content into the body of the article, then moving the citation from the lead to the body. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of the rest of the article, and because the lead usually just repeats information that is cited later on in the article, it does not usually need to contain citations (MOS:LEADCITE).

Y Done, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 03:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Citations

• Overall, I think the citation style of the article needs some tidying.
  • Cite note 6 is missing some important bibliographic information such as author, publisher, and publication date. It is also stated to be another another Mental Floss article, but clicking on the link it seems to be a book?
  • Cite notes 14, 17, 18, 22, 26, 28, and 29 appear to also be missing missing some important bibliographic information and should probably be reformatted with {{cite web}} to include bibliographic information like website name, publisher, publication date, etc.

Y Done with both Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 15:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @The4lines: Ah, it looks like some of the numbering has shifted. The main issue is with citations formatted like the last paragraph of the "Origins" section at the moment, where it looks like this:

<ref>[http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/tournament.php?id=29 Deep blue had white and lost to Fritz in 39 moves] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007035001/http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/tournament.php?id=29 |date=7 October 2008 }}</ref>

Ideally, for consistency in citation style, we should reformat the citation with {{cite web}} and also include at minimum: the title of the source, the website name, and the accessdate. If available, we should also include the publisher name (if different from the website name), the author name, and the publication date. The archive URL is important because the original URL appears to be dead, and it can be added by filling in the |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |url-status= parameters of cite web. So in total, something like this:

<ref>{{cite web |title=8th World Computer Chess Championship |url=http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/tournament.php?id=29 |website=ICGA Tournaments |accessdate=4 June 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007035001/http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/tournament.php?id=29 |archivedate=7 October 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

There are a number of citations that need similar tidying scattered throughout the article—all of the references that use the {{webarchive}} template should probably be replaced by {{cite web}}. There is even one citation (cite note 15 currently, the New York Times article) that is just a bare URL. Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, I think the main issue with this article is the "broadness" criterion. There are some minor issues with citation style and verifiability, but it seems like there is a great deal of coverage about this computer out there in reliable sources (e.g. Google Scholar) that is ignored by this article, especially with respect to the computer's technical design and overall impact on the computer science academic field. Mz7 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

   (original reviewer comment) Hi, thanks for starting this. I admit that the citations are a bit lacking - I should have looked at them more in-depth. About the broadness though, I thought that for a layman like me, it covered the topic sufficiently - I personally was not left with any questions about Deep Blue after reading the article. Of course, I don't have the same amount of interest in the topic that you (and probably many other readers) have, so that may taint my view a little bit. Overall, though, I think the points you bring up are completely valid and I agree with the necessity of this re-review - I should have noticed them in my review. All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 21:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

   Mm, I agree that the article doesn't need to get too technical, but nevertheless I think the "Design" subsection specifically should be expanded. After looking for a bit, I found this article published by IEEE which looks like it goes into detail in the computer's design (starting on page 72). It looks like it's targeted to people with some computer science/electrical engineering background, but I want to clarify that I think we don't necessarily have to limit ourselves to academic sources. For example, this NYT article looks like it mentions some of the hardware design (e.g. # of processors) and the Forbes article already cited in the section describes some of the software design (i.e. the "brute force" approach). Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

   Right, that makes sense, now that you've clarified a bit, I completely agree, that's a problem that should be fixed. Not coming from a computer-y background at all, that demographic didn't come to mind during my review, but now that you point all that out, I definetely think that's a problem that needs to be adressed. Thanks again for the reassesment! -- puddleglum^2.0 00:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

8. Mz7 Done, Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 02:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)