Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:54:20 04/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
Write it down as you want, but the play shown by Deep Blue was around 2400 level. The play shown by Kasparov was worse as that even, around 2300 level. Yes he didn't give away a piece in any game, but that's about the only good thing we can report about Kasparov. He even fell into a known openingstrap where i will never fall for. But he also lost a game in 18 moves which never happens to me in slow games and i'm 2285 rated. Last time i lost so quick i was like 2100 rated or less. The games are easy to analyze. Seirawan has commented on the match with loads of question marks, and missed wins for Kasparov. All of them giving stupid excuses. Any world champion missing wins which a 2200+ isn't missing means it is the worst game ever of this world champ. Just read the ICCA journal for analysis of Seirawan. issue june 1997. to ask for this article email Jaap v/d Herik who is leading the ICCA journal publications. The games are really bad. Very bad. Deep Blue didn't even know some doubled pawns are good... Of course its search depth of between 11 to 13 ply was very good considering in 1997 most programs only got that depth WITH forward pruning. Programs WITH a bit of mobility never got to that depth in 1997. In that sense deep blue sure would have had a good shot at any program in those days, when we disregard the openingsbook. Yet i'm pretty sure that many programs in 1997 would have beaten it. In Hong Kong that was proven by Fritz. the mistakes made by Deep Blue are very poor. Like it castled straight into the mate. Diep plays g3 from 8 ply and further there. Then a few moves later we get the blunder c4. Diep realizes this within a second that it is a blunder. Even a connection problem is not explaining it, as i get out of hashtables already that c4 is a blunder... From the 1997 match logfiles against kasparov we can learn that deep blue IS using information from the previous search. Nevertheless there *might* be a technical explanation for the c4 move. The o-o?? blunder is however only explainable when we use some of todays programs which also know very little from king safety. Deep Blue - Fritz WCC95, 1995 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bx f6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 f4 13.0-0 Rg8 14.Kh1 Rg6 15.Qd1 Rc8 16.c4 Qh 4 17.g3 Qh3 18.Qd2 f3 19.Rg1 Rh6 20.Qxh6 Qxh6 21.cxb5 Bxd5 22.exd5 Nb4 23.Bf5 Rc 5 24.bxa6 Nxa6 25.Nc2 Qd2 26.Ne1 Rxd5 27.Nxf3 Qxf2 28.Be4 Ra5 29.Rg2 Qe3 30.Re1 Qh6 31.Bc6+ Kd8 32.a3 f5 33.Rc2 Rc5 34.Rxc5 Nxc5 35.Rf1 Be7 36.a4 f4 37.gxf4 Qxf4 38.Rg1 Nxa4 3 9.b4 Qxb4 0-1 Note Deep Blue drew also a game versus another program in Hong Kong. Forgot its name and i definitely do not have the PGN of it regrettably otherwise i would analyze it. Best Regards, Vincent On April 21, 2001 at 09:56:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 21, 2001 at 00:23:30, Uri Blass wrote: > >> >>I dislike deciding that Deeper blue is better than all the PC's without seeing >>games against other programs. > >I saw enough of its predecessor at 1/100th the speed and 1/10th the knowledge >to know how well it played. We also had several reports of games played vs >micros, by Hsu and Campbell. > > >> >>I read in one newspaper a claim that Kasparov played like an IM in the match(the >>newspaper is a daily newspaper and not a newspaper only for chess). >>It is not my opinion but people who believe it can doubt if Deeper blue was >>better than other top programs of that time. > > > >I doubt you will find one impartial computer chess expert that would say that >DB was no better than the top micro programs. That is simply an insane >opinion, just as insane as thinking that a Volkswagen beetle will outrun a >Mclaren F1. > >As far as Kasparov's play goes, I am reminded that when _any_ player runs into >a very strong opponent, that player seems to play worse than normal. When in >reality he is playing as strongly as always but the opponent makes him _look_ >weaker. Kramnik handed Kasparov his head in a basket in their match. Yet I >don't think Kasparov played horribly. Kramnik just played better. > > > > >> >>> >>>DB never played Fritz. It was first built _after_ the 1995 WCCC event. >>> >>>In the present case, shredder was in the tournament with the other >>>two potential competitors and it beat them both. not once either... >> >>Yes, but Crafty can get an hardware advantage and more than 8 processors and you >>can also say that this crafty never played in tournament because the crafty that >>played used clearly a slower hardware(Shredder also did not use 8 processors but >>the difference for Crafty is clearly bigger). >> >>Uri > > >That doesn't matter. I could run Crafty on the fastest hardware I can think >of, and perhaps reach 30M nodes per second or so. And I would expect to win >any match I would play against micro-based programs (not single games perhaps, >but say 10-game or longer matches). Yet I would _not_ expect to win a match >vs DB, although I would expect to win an occasional game here and there. > >Shredder ran on slower hardware than the other programs yet it still won both >events. I see _nothing_ that suggests that his parallel version would somehow >be weaker than the other two parallel programs. I don't see any indication that >DF or DJ are any better than my program in terms of the parallel search >efficiency. In fact, I'm not sure they are quite as good as mine (yet). So >there is little to suggest that their parallel searches get more out of the >hardware than SMK's parallel search. > > >Or do we have to play a _new_ event each time Intel/AMD ups the clock speed a >few mhz? Because one may get more out of that speed jump than the others? >While I believe that this concept might be reasonable, I don't think the >difference is enough to justify a monthly "I am the best" event...
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.