Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:15:24 05/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2001 at 16:11:11, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 06, 2001 at 14:44:40, Paul wrote: > >>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 > >I already analyzed another position from the first game and unfortunately nobody >responded to the analysis and the discussion was about the question if Deeper >blue did processing at the root. > >see http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?167877 > >Uri Uri, for all programmers you had proven the point very clearly.
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.