Author: Uri Blass
Date: 18:57:57 04/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2001 at 18:54:20, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. A known opening trap? I suggest that you try comp-comp games from the relevant position. I suspect that you are going to discover that black is winning so I suspect that deeper blue falled into the know opening trap. Kapsaprov went to a line he was not prepared to play and this was his mistake. The fact that he started to think in a known position that is a theory position convinced me that kasparov was not prepared for the relevant line. > >But he also lost a game in 18 moves which never happens to me >in slow games and i'm 2285 rated. The numbers of moves is not important. I guess that you are also not going to resign in the position that kasparov resigned in the last game because at your level you have practical chances that the opponent is going to blunder. > >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. missed wins? I think that he only commented about positional errors and I am not sure if Seirawan was right because it is possible that kasparov saw more than Seirawan or had a better evaluation function. 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. I did not see a win and programs that are clearly better than 2200 did not see a win for kasparov in the games. > >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. Fritz did not play against Deeper blue but against Deep thought(it was called Deep thought/blue in the pgn). > >the mistakes made by Deep Blue are very poor. Like it castled straight >into the mate. I am not sure if it was a mistake because there is no forced mate and program-program games did not convince me that black is winning. > >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... c4 was a blunder and I remember that I found in machine-machine game at that time that with a different move white had chances to win and this leads me to doubt if castling was wrong. > >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. Can Diep win these programs after 0-0? > >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. Deep thought/Blue drew against wchess at that tournament. I have the game and the final position was better for wchess and I do not understand why did the programmers agree to a draw. [Event "WM"] [Site "Hong Kong"] [Date "1995.??.??"] [Round "4"] [White "WChess"] [Black "Deep Thought/Blue"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "B22"] [PlyCount "120"] [EventDate "1995.??.??"] [Source "Frank Quisinsky"] 1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Nc6 7. O-O cxd4 8. cxd4 Be7 9. Nc3 Qd6 10. Nb5 Qd8 11. Bf4 Nd5 12. Bg3 a6 13. Nc3 O-O 14. Qb3 Nf6 15. Rfd1 b5 16. a3 Bb7 17. Qa2 Na5 18. b4 Rc8 19. Rac1 Nc6 20. Bf4 Re8 21. d5 exd5 22. Nxd5 Nxd5 23. Qxd5 Qxd5 24. Rxd5 Bxb4 25. axb4 Rxe2 26. Be3 Re8 27. Rd7 Ba8 28. Nd2 Nxb4 29. Kf1 R2xe3 30. fxe3 Nd5 31. Kf2 h6 32. Nf1 Nb4 33. Nd2 Bd5 34. Rb1 Be6 35. Ra7 Nd3+ 36. Ke2 Nc5 37. Rb4 Bd5 38. g3 Ra8 39. Rxa8+ Bxa8 40. Rd4 Kh7 41. Rd8 Bb7 42. Rb8 Bh1 43. Rc8 Ne6 44. e4 Bg2 45. Ke3 Bh3 46. Rc6 f5 47. Rxa6 Nc5 48. Rd6 Nxe4 49. Nxe4 fxe4 50. Kf2 Bg4 51. Rb6 Bf3 52. Rxb5 g5 53. Ke3 Kg7 54. Rb7+ Kg6 55. Rb6+ Kg7 56. Re6 h5 57. Rd6 h4 58. g4 Bxg4 59. Kxe4 Bh3 60. Rd3 Bg4 1/2-1/2 Uri
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.