Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:36:08 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. > >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... I See no point in arguing about DB's play or eval. _everything_ that you say will be nothing but speculation, and we can speculate all day with no resolution of any kind. > >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. That is a completely wrong statement. I have reported before, that each member of the DB team has confirmed that the depths reported as 11(5) means 11 plies of software search (+ extensions of course) followed by 5 full-width plies of hardware search (+ extensions like in check, but not singular) followed by a normal quiescence search. Hsu reported this. Campbell and others confirmed it. Your 11-13 plies is simply _wrong_. As I also told you in the past, the _hardware_ does not produce a PV at all, it is incapable of doing this as it was designed. But behind _every_ PV you see in the IBM output, lies a 5-6-7 ply hardware search on top of it that you can't see... > >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. How? Fritz played a 2M NPS version of the program on the _original_ deep thought hardware. Hsu produced _two_ more re-designs before the final Kasparov match. The machine Fritz beat had _nothing_ to do with either the machine used in match one or the machine used in match two. I wish you would stop making the wild claim that you could beat them. Crafty played them 10 games in their lab and it did no better than Fritz or Rebel in that test. I don't believe you can reliably beat Crafty in a match today, which makes your claim of easily beating them really a stretch of your imagination... > >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. Again, remember that DB 97 logs have _nothing_ to do with the deep thought hardware that Fritz beat in 1995. > >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 >
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.