Author: Paul
Date: 11:16:04 05/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2001 at 14:01:22, Terry McCracken wrote: >On May 06, 2001 at 05:40:02, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 06, 2001 at 03:51:47, Paul wrote: >> >>>On May 06, 2001 at 02:28:14, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>I gave Deep Fritz to analyze similiar number of nodes to Deeper blue and Deep >>>>Fritz seems to be clearly better in tactics. >>>> >>>>Deep Fritz needs only 191728 knodes to see the line Rf5+ Ke3 >>>>It means only 1 second if I asuume 200,000,000 nodes per second. >>>> >>>>I believe that Rf5+ failed low at depth 17 for Deeper blue for the reason Ke3. >>>>The pv of deeper blue at smaller depthes is Rf5+ Ke2 >>>> >>>>Deep Fritz probably does better extensions than Deeper blue because Deep Fritz >>>>see big fail low at depth 16. >>>> >>>>Deep fritz also can see another fail low for Rg8 at depth 22 when deeper blue >>>>could get only depth 17 after similiar number of nodes. >>>> >>>>I do not believe that you lose more than 2-3 plies from null move pruning(my >>>>test suggest that you do not lose even 1 ply at small depthes so I guess that >>>>Deep Fritz can search deeper because it is a better software. >>>> >>>> >>>>kasparov - Deeper blue >>>>4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 1 >>>> >>>>Analysis by Deep Fritz: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>I remember from the time this match was played that this was due to some bug >>>which was subsequently corrected, so there's not much sense in discussing this >>>position. Any other will do, but not this one. Even my program finds Rf5+ in >>>seconds. >>> >>>Groetjes, >>>Paul >> >>I know about the bug >> >>I am not talking about finding Rf5 but about finding the reason that Rf5+ is >>losing. >> >>I mean to find the fact that line Rf5+ Ke3 that is good for white. >>Deeper blue could not see it at iteration 16 and the logfile suggests Rf5+ Ke2 >> >>Deeper blue had a fail low at iteration 17 and the logfile does not give a line >>for Rf5. >>I guess that it failed low because of Ke3. >> >>The point is that Deeper blue is slower than top programs in failing low. >> >>Deeper blue could not find Rf5+ Ke3 after 73 seconds when Deep Fritz can find it >>in a few minutes on p800 and it means that it could find it in less than second >>if it could search 200M nps. >> >>Uri > >I think you're right Uri if you dragged out Deep Blue of May 1997 or at least >close. >But you have to remember it was 1997 and if my memory serves me correctly, >Kasparov was very puzzled by Rf5+ as programms just didn't look at this move >at that time, except for Deep Blue in such a short time frame. >At least that's what I remeber from what Kasparov mentioned in his notes. Not >the exact words, I'm not quoting what Kasparov said or wrote but just what I >remember from that time, on the "Old Club Kasparov" hosted by IBM which is long >gone. >I also remember after many hours of analysis with "computers of the day" >P6-200's, that Kasparov finally "understood" why Deep Blue played the "Human" >looking move, Rf5+. >Actually, I think Kasparov wasted too much energy trying to understand Deeper >Blue which I believe exhausted him. Hence, his less than stellar preformance >in Game 2 and the rest of the match. > >Terry McCracken Deep Blue didn't play Rf5, it played Rd1! Uri wants to analyze the evaluation out of the log of Deep Blue ignoring the bug. Seems impossible to me. :) Paul
This page took 0.01 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.