Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:01:16 05/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2003 at 19:36:27, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On May 28, 2003 at 14:55:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 28, 2003 at 11:17:00, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On May 28, 2003 at 11:00:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 28, 2003 at 00:57:00, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 28, 2003 at 00:10:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 27, 2003 at 19:11:49, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>After being completely out-played for the entire game, and with imminent defeat >>>>>>>on the horizon, Kasparov resigned the 2nd game rather than drag out the >>>>>>>humiliation. But Deep Blue had made a critical error, allowing Kasparov a >>>>>>>perpetual check. The analysis is quite deep and extends slightly beyond Deep >>>>>>>Blue's search horizon. And, apparently, also Kasparov's. Kasparov's team, which >>>>>>>included Grandmaster Yuri Dokhoian and Frederic Friedel, were faced with the >>>>>>>delicate task of revealing the news to Kasparov. They waited until lunch the >>>>>>>next day, after he had had a nice glass of wine to drink. After they revealed >>>>>>>the hidden drawing resource, Kasparov sunk into deep thought (no pun intended) >>>>>>>for five minutes before he conceded that he had missed a draw. He later claimed >>>>>>>that this was the first time he had resigned a drawn position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Six years later, which program can see the draw in the famous 2nd game of the >>>>>>>rematch? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jorge >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>NO program sees this. It is about 60 plies deep. It is unlikely that a >>>>>>program will see it for quite some time to come, in fact... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Whenever this comes up, you always say "about 60 plies", but I can't find >>>>>anything to corroborate this. Let's see your analysis. >>>> >>>>The best analysis I specifically remember was posted on Ed's web site a few >>>>years ago. I didn't save it as it was not particularly "interesting" to me. >>>> >>>>It might still be available however... >>> >>> >>>http://www.rebel.nl/db2.htm >>> >>>He only gives 36 plies. A far cry from "about 60 plies" >> >> >>OK... then that may not be the deepest drawing line. >> >>However, he does point out the difficulty of finding one particular non-checking >>move way deep into the tree... > > >While one could argue whether or not a program like Yace or Fritz can actually >"see" the draw from the root position, there is little question that they would >actually "play" the draw. This is an easy experiment to perform and you will >find this includes the move you allude to. I've done that myself and I agree. However, following the moves to a draw is not the same thing as recognizing that the game is a draw at the point in question. Of course, just eventually stumbling into the draw by playing reasonable moves is a good first approximation. But I'd prefer to see a program understand from the beginning that this is drawn and why this is so... ie evaluate the various positions along the way correctly. > >There is a more interesting experiment that I would like to see Yace perform. It >would require modification to the program, however. That is to have it perform a >test to see if the position after the ...Qc1 move occurs plus to verify that it >correctly evaluates it. > >BTW, I think this type of test should be a standard feature of programs that can >be turned on/off. How else to know to determine with a high degree of confidence >whether a program "understands" a given position or not? It's a huge headache. I could do this in the 1970s because the tree size was small enough to print the _entire_ thing. Not today when it could easily pass one billion lines of output. And if you are talking about searching overnight, forget it. :)
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.