Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:48:12 06/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2000 at 02:29:21, blass uri wrote:
>On May 31, 2000 at 01:40:08, blass uri wrote:
>
>>On May 30, 2000 at 21:43:12, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On May 30, 2000 at 17:54:45, Joshua Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 30, 2000 at 17:02:40, blass uri wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 30, 2000 at 16:51:08, stuart taylor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I just noticed on ssdf rating list details, that hiarcs7.32 on 450mhz. beat
>>>>>>fritz 3 on 90mhz. 18.5 to 3.5. That fritz was very similar to the exact thing
>>>>>>which beat deep blue at the time.ah!!!! so what do you say to that?
>>>>>>S.Taylor
>>>>>
>>>>>I say that it is less than 90% and I read that Deep thought(not deep blue) got
>>>>>more than 90% against Fritz3(p90)
>>>>>
>>>>>I do not know if to believe to the last claim because they did not do the games
>>>>>public and I have no idea if the games are tournament time control or faster
>>>>>time control(I am interested only in tournament time control games).
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>How about Hiarcs on my Athlon 800 Clocked to 880Mhz?
>>>>I think if it is still taking Hiarcs on Pos 3 of the LCTII test 49minutes to
>>>>solve it at 11ply and Deep Thought of 1989 which played Kasparov was searching
>>>>2M nps and 12Ply in 40/2 then Most computers would in fact win a game or two but
>>>>not a match. also Deep Thought of 1988 at 750,000 nodes per second would be
>>>>better but i have looked at games of the pre 1990 computers and can only say
>>>>that Hiarcs has to be better than some of those computers because it can spot
>>>>the mistakes right off the bat and wouldn't play the loosing move in the first
>>>>place. I'll find the game.... other than that my reasoning was just that the
>>>>opening books caused those programs to lose.
>>>>
>>>>maybe everyone interested should have their respective software analyze older
>>>>games like that of Cray Blitz and Hitech.
>>>
>>>
>>>I did this for the 1986 WCCC event (Cray Blitz only). I was amazed that Crafty
>>>did not find one single tactical blunder, even though Crafty of today is
>>>searching far faster than CB of 1986 (we were doing about 160K nodes per second
>>>back then on an 8 cpu YMP I believe). I used "annotate" for each game played.
>>>
>>>Chris whittington raised the question of a really ugly looking move Bh7 against
>>>Bobby I think. And he criticized it endlessly. And then we discovered that it
>>>was forced and CSTal also liked the _same_ move. :)
>>>
>>>That says a lot about the robustness of a good 1986 search on pretty good 1986
>>>hardware. It is easy to reproduce the test since crafty will annotate a
>>>collection of PGN game scores (in a single file) at one batch run,
>>>automatically.
>>>
>>>I think you will find that the tactical mistakes of the 1986 supercomputers are
>>>_very_ hard to find with today's PC machines.
>>
>>Tactical mistakes of deep thought are not hard to find with today PC's program.
>>The last one was against Fritz3 but I found more mistakes in some games that
>>they lost or did not win.
>>
>>Uri
>
>I can add that I can see tactical mistake of Deeper blue in the game that it
>lost
>
>[D]4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 1
>
>Deeper blue played Rd1 instead of Rf5+
>
>Rf5+ is losing but the logfiles of deeper blue showed that it did not see the
>line Rf5+ Ke3(chessmaster(ss=10) can see it after 82 seconds and
>
>Rd5f5 kf2e2 Re8g8 pg6g7 Kh6h5 rg4g1 Rf5f3 bc3b2 Kh5h6 rg1g4 Rf3f5 bb2d4 Pe4e3
>ke2e3P Rf5f1 ke3e4 Rf1f6p was the main line with evaluation of -210 before Rf5+
>failed low with evaluation of -260
>
>The final main line is a bad main line:
>
>Rd5d1 pf6f7 Rd1f1 kf2f1R Kh6h5 pf7e8R/q Kh5g4r with evaluation of -180 when
>white has a simple mate after these stupid moves.
>
>Uri
Interesting indeed...
The log-file in question:
#[Rf5](-210)[Rf5](-210) -210v T=73
Rd5f5 kf2e2 Re8g8 pg6g7 Kh6h5 rg4g1 Rf5f3 bc3b2 Kh5h6 rg1g4 Rf3f5 bb2d4 Pe4e3
ke2e3P Rf5f1 ke3e4 Rf1f6p
11(6) #[Rf5](-260)v[find a move]#########[TIMEOUT][et3 1295 sec]
#[Rg8](-183)[Rd1](-180) -180 T=204
Rd5d1 pf6f7 Rd1f1 kf2f1R Kh6h5 pf7e8R/q Kh5g4r
Analysis of Rf5+ (using Analysis Include):
00:00:06 9.00 -1.70 1..Rf5+ 2.Ke1 e3 3.f7 Rd8 4.Ke2
Kh5 5.g7 Rxf7 6.g8=Q (1)
00:00:23 10.00 -1.73 1..Rf5+ 2.Ke3 Rf3 3.Ke2 Rxc3 4.f7
Rd8 5.g7 Rxc2 6.Ke1 Rc1 7.Kf2 e3
8.Kg2 Rc2 9.Kh3 e2 10.g8=Q (6)
00:00:58 11.00 -1.73 1..Rf5+ 2.Ke3 Rf3 3.Ke2 Rxc3 4.f7
Rd8 5.g7 Rxc2 6.Ke1 Rc1 7.Kf2 e3
8.Kg2 Rc2 9.Kh3 (23)
00:02:41 12.00 -2.21 1..Rf5+ 2.Ke2 Rg8 3.g7 Kh5 4.Rg1
00:06:24 13.00 -2.37 1..Rf5+ 2.Ke3 Rf3 3.Ke2 Rg8 4.Bd2
Kh5 5.Rg5 Kh4 6.f7 Rg7 7.Re5 Kg3
8.Be1 Kg2 (161)
So a constantly dropping score for Rf5+
Then Analysis of Rd1 (using Analysis Include):
00:00:04 9.00 -3.27 1..Rd1 2.f7 Rf8 3.Ke3 Rdd8 4.Bf6
Ra8 5.Be7 Kg7 6.Bxf8 Rxf8 (1)
00:00:11 10.00 -3.48 1..Rd1 2.g7 Rd5 3.Ke2 Rf5 4.Rh4
Kg6 5.Rh8 Rg8 6.Rxg8 Rf3 (4)
00:00:31 11.00 -3.71 1..Rd1 2.g7 Rd5 3.Ke2 Rf5 4.Rh4
Kg6 5.Rh8 Rg8 6.Rxg8 Rxf6 (11)
00:01:25 12.00 -4.03 1..Rd1 2.g7 Rd5 3.Ke2 Rd7 4.g8=Q
Rxg8 (31)
00:03:49 13.00 -4.20 1..Rd1 2.g7 Rd5 3.Ke2 Rd7 4.g8=Q
Rxg8 (85)
Rf5+ looks clearly better and the score of -1.80 for Rd1 given by
DB looks ridiculous and I don't understand it either.
Ed
This page took 0.01 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.