Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:25:41 05/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2004 at 11:01:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 10, 2004 at 10:38:17, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >kasparov just shuffles something on 3 rows and you call him lucky instead of the >machine plain stupid? > >:) > >[lots of laughter] Yes there is. But you need to realize that _most_ of this laughter is directed at you. Not along with you. IE where is the JICCA article citation? Where is the post about my speedup formula working for any number of processors? Where is the proof that my speedup approximation is way off? Where is the proof that Crafty produces no speedup on a dual? Where is the proof that null-move search produces _way_ worse parallel speedups than a non-null-move search? You always bad-mouth _my_ parallel search. Where is _your_ data to show that you are doing much better? You always bad-mount _my_ program. Where is your data to show that you beat me "chancelessly"? If hot air could win arguments, you'd be the best, hands-down. But it doesn't. And you aren't. So where is some _data_ to support your nonsense? Where is some proof for the claims you have made? How are things going in loser-land??? Or in liar-land? Or wherever it is you live? If you'd offer a little evidence or proof every now and then, rather than lots of hot-air and hand-waving, perhaps you'd be taken seriously. Perhaps your credibility would not be worse than DB's evaluation and search supposedly is? Nah. Nothing could make that happen. > >>On May 10, 2004 at 07:35:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 10, 2004 at 06:28:13, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>> >>>fritz3 beated deep blue in world champs 1995. >>> >>>rebel8 beated deepblue junior playing blitz against it in world champs 1999. >>> >>>And no it didn't move instantly deepblue junior. It used its time up very >>>wisely. >>> >>>It just didn't have a book, that's all. >>> >>>the moves played by deepblue are horrible. real horrible. >>> >>>now you try to convince me that those nonsense moves played by deep blue which >>>all have questionmarks are good? :) >>> >>>you're funny. >> >>They're playable. A lot of things in chess are playable - even if you'll never >>play them yourself. >> >>> >>>I happen to be FM and after intensive analysis i conclude that kasparov didn't >>>do a thing in game 1, but that deep blue committed suicide there with moves like >>>h6 g5 and another shitload of moves. >>> >> >>By the way even the endgame wasn't that easy to win. In fact Kasparov was quite >>lucky that at some point that it was winning, these types of endings will >>usually somehow dissipate into a draw. After nine "?" moves for one side and >>four or five "!" moves for the other I'd at least think the ending wouldn't be >>so interesting. >> >>Vas >> >>>>On May 08, 2004 at 20:25:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 18:55:16, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 12:14:42, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 11:51:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 10:50:57, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 07:18:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>You are absulutely right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>>>>>>>>>>>correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>>>>>>>>>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>>>>>>>>>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>:_( >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>>>>>>>>>>>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>>>>>>>>>>>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>>>>>>>>>>>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>>>>>>>>>>>and dispose of you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >>>>>>>>>>>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >>>>>>>>>>>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >>>>>>>>>>>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >>>>>>>>>>>questionmark moves from Junior! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>-S. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I never thought this day would come - but I agree with Uri here. :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Sports aren't about beautiful play. Sports are about winning. If someone is >>>>>>>>>>playing ugly, and winning, then it's your sense of aesthetics which needs to be >>>>>>>>>>reviewed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Computers have a long history of winning ugly. In the recent Fritz-Kasparov and >>>>>>>>>>Junior-Kasparov matches, the machines made many many more "mistakes" (according >>>>>>>>>>to human opinion) than Kasparov. But - if these mistakes aren't punished - are >>>>>>>>>>they really mistakes? Is it a mistake to leave Shaq wide open for three point >>>>>>>>>>shots? (Or send him to the line for "free" throws?) It's impossible to speak >>>>>>>>>>about objectivity here. You can only look at the results. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Vas >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Let's take a look at some of the moves the annotator didn't like: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[D]r2q1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2pbpn2/3p3b/8/1P1PPNPP/PBPN1PB1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 10 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Zappa plays the obvious 10 ...e5. Deep Blue played 10 ...h6. I won't call this >>>>>>>>>a bad move, but it's clearly a pass move. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That isn't very convincing. Did you look at _your_ PV? move 4? :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Order doesn't mean much to alpha/beta as it scores positions, not moves as they >>>>>>>>are played. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>First impression is that h6 and e5 transpose to the _same_ position... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I will accept that my 4 ply search plays pass moves some of the time :) Zappa >>>>>>>uses pure R=3 now, and perhaps the evaluation isn't quite good enough for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>anthony >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>In my opinion 10...h6 is not merely a pass move or waste of time. White may >>>>>>plan to push the g-pawn to g4 and drive the black bishop to g6 aiming to >>>>>>exchange his knight for the bishop later, playing the knight to h4. Thus >>>>>>10...h6 gives black refuge. Besides, the bishop positioned at h7 would be very >>>>>>useful later on, perhaps after the push you mentioned that Zappa plays right >>>>>>away, exerting pressure on the e4 square... >>>>>> >>>>>>Just an idea. One glance at the diagram... Caveat emptor :-) >>>>> >>>>>I tend to agree with Seirawan on this matter more, after h6 you can resign here >>>>>positionally with black. >>>> >>>>Aha, so it was Seirawan who is responsible for these ridiculous annotations. >>>>That would explain a lot. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but his many >>>>opinions shouldn't be confused for facts. >>>> >>>>It was quite funny to watch Seirawan during Fritz-Kasparov, game 4. Kasparov >>>>with black chose the QGA, breaking the old boring stereotyped rule that you >>>>shouldn't let computers play open positions. At this point, there would be >>>>several explanations: >>>> >>>>1) Kasparov has a different opinion about what computer can and can't do. >>>>2) Kasparov has a different idea about the QGA and where his preparation will >>>>lead him. >>>>3) Kasparov made a horrible opening blunder that even beginners should be able >>>>to avoid by following some simple logic. >>>> >>>>The next half hour or so were filled with explanations of why exactly you >>>>shouldn't give computers these types of positions. Followed by congratulations >>>>to the Fritz opening team for outfoxing Kasparov in the opening. It was really >>>>funny. >>>> >>>>Of course a few moves later of course the "danger" had passed, and it was clear >>>>who had had his way in the opening - once again. >>>> >>>>Chess is not easy, and there are many reasonable ways to play just about any >>>>position. It's silly to think that the one you like is the correct one, or the >>>>only one. >>>> >>>>Vas
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.