Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:17:42 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 10:40:55, Ulrich Tuerke wrote:
>On June 18, 2001 at 10:25:36, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On June 18, 2001 at 10:01:45, Ulrich Tuerke wrote:
>>
>>>On June 18, 2001 at 08:54:10, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 18, 2001 at 08:33:21, Ulrich Tuerke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On June 18, 2001 at 08:28:08, Bas Hamstra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On June 17, 2001 at 01:09:50, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On June 16, 2001 at 22:59:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From Gian-Carlo i received tonight a cool version of crafty 18.10,
>>>>>>>>namely a modified version of crafty. The modification was that it
>>>>>>>>is using a small sense of Singular extensions, using a 'moreland'
>>>>>>>>implementation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Instead of modifying Crafty to simulate Deep Blue, why didn't you
>>>>>>>modify Netscape? Or anything else? I don't see _any_ point in
>>>>>>>taking a very fishy version of crafty and trying to conclude _anything_
>>>>>>>about deep blue from it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unless you are into counting chickens to forecast weather, or something
>>>>>>>else...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't agree here. It is fun. Maybe not extremely accurate, but it says
>>>>>>*something* about the efficiency of their search, which I believe is horrible. I
>>>>>>think using SE and not nullmove is *inefficient* as compared to nullmove. We
>>>>>>don't need 100.0000% accurate data when it's obviously an order of magnitude
>>>>>>more inefficient.
>>>>>
>>>>>May be you are right, if the program is running on a PC. However if you can
>>>>>reach a huge depth anyway because of hardware, may be you can afford to use
>>>>>this, because it doesn't matter too much wasting one ply depth ?
>>>>
>>>>It is not about wasting one ply but about clearly more than it and
>>>>it is clear that not using null move is counter productive when the difference
>>>>becomes bigger and not smaller at longer time control so the fact that they had
>>>>better hardware only supports using null move.
>>>
>>>How can you be so sure ? Do you really know that all of the top programs are
>>>using null move. I wouldn't bet too high on this. There may be viable
>>>alternatives to this, though not being published.
>>
>>I know that Junior and Rebel do not use null move but they use other pruning
>>techniques.
>>
>>I do not believe that the technique of no pruning+singular extension is good at
>>long time control and this is the point.
>
>You may be right or not. Who knows ?
>Who really knows the program of the Deep Blue guys ?
>IMHO, the discussion is far too speculative.
>
>I guess that these gentlemen were knowing very well what they were doing.
>I think that it's almost some kind of arrogance, to disqaulify their program
>without knowing a thing. Isn't it ?
>
>Uli
grep "Uli" FIDE*.txt
Can't find.
Definitely stronger chessplayers will be able to tell you some
facts about the games. The games are big crap.
Biggest shame on Kasparov of course. He played beginner games.
In computer-human games kasparov managed for a year or 10 to
get away with that. In the end he always won without doing a thing.
This time in game 6 he was fooled. This was very good for the
personality of Kasparov i think. Very bad for chess though.
So there is some very hard proof. Toying like a boy of 2200 he
played some games, focussing on only giving now and then a pawn
away, missing simple strategic wins which any 2200+ would never
have missed.
Of course most of those wins were in opening. Only the press conference
like is at a CB magazine short before the match is showing the
real truth.
Kasparov played a baby in his opinion. And he was right. Yeah he
was pretty right. But even a baby can win that position which
happened in game 6. Kasparov thought he would even not lose from
a baby in such a position.
WHAT AN ARROGANCE.
But we definitely can analyse the games.
And the games are bad. BAD. BAD. BAD.
Way under my level, AND I'M A BABY CHESS PLAYER IN THE EYES OF KASPAROV.
He can handle 100 in a simulatenously exhibition of mine level
at the same time, probably not blindfolded, but nearly.
And yes, i'm not even IM yet. I'll get it i guess one day. I'm not
trying hard, but i'll get IM if i try a bit harder.
the games are way under IM level. With exception of game 6 from Deep
Blue side, around 6 big errors a game.
Nothing as bad as a strategic error, and kasparov made strategic error
after strategic error in many games.
Seirawan is excusing him in a way which is just too friendly: "mr
kasparov is himself never playing this type of positions, so
that he misses these basic strategic concepts by not playing the
better move, this might be an explanation for that!"
It's obvious only one man is to blame for all this. I bet the match
was good for HIS ego. But it's bad for chess in general. Everyone nowadays
thinks chess is a solved game.
This in a time that a computer
cannot even drive a car from place A to B,
without getting major accidents, with one of the
problems being that it can't process all the information
between A and B, just because there is too much data.
Even worse, the only way to put my games into the computer is by
entering it by mouse. Just scanning my paper doesn't work. Scanner
software is so bad, that it appears i bought for nothing a scanner
to scan my chess notations.
And i write not so horrible i think. Nowadays most games i write
down without making writing mistakes.
But i can't scan the notation into the computer, as the OCR programs
suck just too much.
Speach, we can go on for hours here.
In short, AI is at a very stupid level, one of the reasons being that
the processing power of cpu's is still pathetic compared to what we need.
Yet many people think chess is solved.
Solved because kasparov played another 5 pathetic games, from game 1
kasparov repeatedly has said: "i shouldn't have won that game".
Read: "i played so horrible that game and i even won it,
after winning that game i thought i played an unborn baby and the
next 5 games i thought i was playing one".
You can say a lot, but a few things we CAN conclude:
a) the moves played by Deep Blue were very bad
b) the good moves played by Deep Blue are also played by todays programs
c) nearly none of the bad moves of deep blue are played by todays programs
d) Amazingly Kasparov has hardly had critics about his bad performance
against deep blue. MOST likely that's because of some lies he said
in front of cameras and accusations which simply aren't true. No
deep blue team didn't cheat with karpov in the background or behind
some kind of monitor influencing the game. All lies from kasparov which
reveal the truth. I'm blaming kasparov for something, but amazingly
in nearly all articles written about kasparov-deep blue this hardly
is getting written down. Only in the chess scene itself this is getting
written down
If my memory doesn't let me down:
e) in 1790 there was a machine that played very good chess, so people said.
It beated strong chess player after strong chessplayer.
f) in 1840 still several people believed that around 1790 a machine
was constructed which played very good chess
g) in 1900 people knew that there was no such machine, only a machine
with a hidden GM inside, so the machine wasn't playing very good chess
h) in 1914 there finally was a machine which could play a bit of chess itself
of course very limited chess and very bad. WW1 of course overshadowed
the introduction of this machine.
i) in 1997 we had a computer which beated kasparov in a match, so
it was believed, by most people, that it really played very
strong chess
j) in 20xx it was obvious that the thing wasn't so good
k) in 2yyy there really was a strong machine
my hope is that xx gets replaced by 01 when Kramnik annihilates Fritz
end of this year.
yy is unknown of course. Historically spoken i should fill in 110 there,
but my own guess is 066.
Best regards,
Vincent
>>
>
>>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.