Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:25:15 09/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2003 at 19:14:00, Drexel,Michael wrote: >Some people here have a naive idea of what a Supercomputer can do. >To search a fairly balanced opening position very DIEP is absurd. Not really. Just watch the correspondence rating list and how many kilometers away from here they come and you'll hell sure start to realize something. >Any correspondence master will come up with much better results in the same >time. That only happens when the strategy of the computer is the wrong one. Which in most positions won't happen in which case it is way stronger. In case of diep there is a good positional evaluation then which is very crushing at big depths corr game after corr game. Why not ask Jeroen Noomen. Last ICT3 he had a corr position where no program would have the positional knowledge to do something. He tried diep and it found it after a while :) Good knowledge can do miracles. In tournaments what counts is the boring openings which get played by the Fritz & co kure books which lead to very boring positions where computers can just shuffle with pieces in far endgames. So that shows both Kure's talent as well as how poor these programs perform in middlegame :) Wasting expensive cpu time to just far already solved endgame is bloody nonsense all you need here probably is a pc with shredder and egtbs at a fast SCSI harddisk. Note egtb's at the machine are in RAM. So you can guess what happens here just as well as i do. When it can exchange to a won endgame it will take it, but that counts for all programs. In this position capturing a pawn at g6 is peanuts to evaluate by a 5 men trivially. So there's really nothing here interesting for pc programs to find IMHO. Just get black into a position where you can exchange to a winning 5 men. whether that takes 10 moves or 50 moves is not really interesting i would argue. >Would 500 cpu's Diep be able to solve (or at least to win) this position: > >[D] 5k2/4R3/2K3p1/4BbPn/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 89 > >I assume it would shuffle around the white pieces for another 50 moves. > >[Event "World Championship 35th-KK5"] >[Site "Lyon/New York"] >[Date "1990.12.01"] >[Round "16"] >[White "Kasparov, Garry"] >[Black "Karpov, Anatoly"] >[Result "1-0"] >[ECO "C45"] >[WhiteElo "2800"] >[BlackElo "2730"] >[PlyCount "203"] >[EventDate "1990.10.??"] >[Source "?"] > >1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. e5 Qe7 7. Qe2 Nd5 8. >c4 Nb6 9. Nd2 Qe6 10. b3 a5 11. Bb2 Bb4 12. a3 Bxd2+ 13. Qxd2 d5 14. cxd5 cxd5 >15. Rc1 O-O 16. Rxc7 Qg6 17. f3 Bf5 18. g4 Bb1 19. Bb5 Rac8 20. Rxc8 Rxc8 21. >O-O h5 22. h3 hxg4 23. hxg4 Bc2 24. Qd4 Qe6 25. Rf2 Rc7 26. Rh2 Nd7 27. b4 axb4 >28. axb4 Nf8 29. Bf1 Bb3 30. Bd3 Bc4 31. Bf5 Qe7 32. Qd2 Rc6 33. Bd4 Ra6 34. >Bb1 Ra3 35. Rh3 Rb3 36. Bc2 Qxb4 37. Qf2 Ng6 38. e6 Rb1+ 39. Bxb1 Qxb1+ 40. Kh2 >fxe6 41. Qb2 Qxb2+ 42. Bxb2 Nf4 43. Rh4 Nd3 44. Bc3 e5 45. Kg3 d4 46. Bd2 Bd5 >47. Rh5 Kf7 48. Ba5 Ke6 49. Rh8 Nb2 50. Re8+ Kd6 51. Bb4+ Kc6 52. Rc8+ Kd7 53. >Rc5 Ke6 54. Rc7 g6 55. Re7+ Kf6 56. Rd7 Ba2 57. Ra7 Bc4 58. Ba5 Bd3 59. f4 >exf4+ 60. Kxf4 Bc2 61. Ra6+ Kf7 62. Ke5 Nd3+ 63. Kxd4 Nf2 64. g5 Bf5 65. Bd2 >Ke7 66. Kd5 Ne4 67. Ra7+ Ke8 68. Be3 Nc3+ 69. Ke5 Kd8 70. Bb6+ Ke8 71. Rc7 Ne4 >72. Be3 Ng3 73. Bf4 Nh5 74. Ra7 Kf8 75. Bh2 Ng7 76. Bg1 Nh5 77. Bc5+ Kg8 78. >Kd6 Kf8 79. Bd4 Bg4 80. Be5 Bf5 81. Rh7 Kg8 82. Rc7 Kf8 83. Kc6 Kg8 84. Re7 Kf8 >85. Bd6 Kg8 86. Re8+ Kf7 87. Re7+ Kg8 88. Be5 Kf8 89. Ra7 Bg4 90. Kd6 Bh3 91. >Ra3 Bg4 92. Re3 Bf5 93. Kc7 Kf7 94. Kd8 Bg4 95. Bb2 Be6 96. Bc3 Bf5 97. Re7+ >Kf8 98. Be5 Bd3 99. Ra7 Be4 100. Rc7 Bb1 101. Bd6+ Kg8 102. Ke7 1-0 > >Michael
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.