Author: blass uri
Date: 04:43:33 07/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 1998 at 07:01:20, Amir Ban wrote: >On July 20, 1998 at 21:34:57, Don Dailey wrote: > > >>Although I don't have the same respect for Deep Thought that Bob Hyatt >>does, I still have a lot of respect for it. It has beaten my program >>twice, and both times probably prevented my program from becoming >>world champion. Two games is a small sample to be sure, but common >>sense makes me believe this was no fluke. >> > >I still wonder sometime why you played 14...Kh8? against it in Hong-Kong. In the >opening at least, DB made every effort to lose this game. Didn't you want to win >it ? please post this game > > >>I don't think Deep Thought (or Deep Blue) is invincible and you would >>see many wins and draws against it but I have no doubt it would >>still dominate the micro's. Murray estimated his odds of winning >>that championship at about 50/50. He recognized that Deep Blue would >>be a heavy favorite in any single game but that dodging 5 bullets >>is a harder task. I was more optimistic than even they were, >>thinking Deep Thought had about a 70% chance of winning. As it >>turned out they drew a game and lost a game and this put them out >>of it. > >That's exactly what happened to me, in the same tournament. So I figure that I, >too, must have had 70% chance of winning. Right ? > >I've heard these sort of arguments before, and they are nonsense. The same sort >of arguments were used to show that Fritz, who won, had a 10% or so chance of >winning the tournament. If you listen to these arguments carefully, you will be >convinced that this tournament not only does not weaken Deep-Blue's standing as >the best chess computer, but actually reinforces it. > >The thesis behind these arguments is approximately this: Deep-Blue is >self-evidently the strongest, it scored this result in this tournament, so let's >compute the probability for the result. Interestingly enough, the people making >this argument do not seem interested in revising or qualifying their premise >that Deep-Blue is strongest. You would think that holding a tournament is done >precisely with the aim of getting a better estimate of who is stronger and who >is weaker. > >We'll never know if Deep-Blue was unlucky to score only 3.5 points, or lucky to >score so many. The default assumption is that it scored just what it deserved, >and there is no other scientific conclusion of any significance. The >unspectacular quality of its games in this tournament also more or less agrees >with the result. > >Amir I think deep blue was unlucky in the last game against fritz3 FEN:2rqkb2/5p1p/p1npb1r1/1p1Np3/4Pp2/N2B4/PPP2PPP/R2Q1R1K white(deep blue) to move I think it did the decisive tactical mistake in this position 16.c4 because it did not see in time 16...Qh4 17.g3 Qh3 18.Rg1 Qxh2+ is winnining for black Black is losing tempo in this line (Qh4-h3-h2) and it did not consider lines one side lose a tempo enough. I believe it had a rule not to analyze these lines more than the brute force depth It is bad luck because in most of the cases this rule is not a mistake. 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.