Author: Paul
Date: 11:44:40 05/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2001 at 14:26:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 06, 2001 at 14:25:58, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 06, 2001 at 14:16:04, Paul wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>I believe that the bug happened only after failing low on Rf5. >> >>The logfiles do not give a score for Rd1 so I believe that the bug is not >>relevant for Rd1 > >I mean of course is not relevant for the lines before Rd1 >> >>The last line of the logfile of game 1 begins with >>11(6)[Rf5](-260)v [find a move] >> >>I never see the words find a move in deeper blue in other cases and it suggests >>that the bug happened only after Deeper blue failed low. >> >>The line for Rd1 is also a short line when previous lines are long lines so I >>trust the analysis of deeper blue at depth<17. >> >>Uri Uri, you don't know what the bug was, I don't know what the bug was, and now out of all the positions you could analyze, you pick the one where it's certain that there is a bug in it. Why? Seems to me there are hundreds of other positions more useful & interesting for analysis, for example from the (by Deep Blue at least) excellently played game 6? But if you want to ... go on by all means. :) Greetings, 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.