Author: blass uri
Date: 07:13:24 06/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2000 at 10:00:18, stuart taylor wrote: >On June 01, 2000 at 03:48:12, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>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 > > >Well I've got news for you. Hiarcs 7 finds rf5 instantly, and stays with it for >several hours, then the evaluation jumps to -460 on ply 12, and then rejects it. >It then settles on rg8 by the end of ply 12. about -380 eval. > That took about 15 hours, so I didn't spend more time on it at this stage. >But that indicates that deeper blue had his reasons, and it also indicates that >hiarcs is closing up the gaps. >S.Taylor This indicates nothing because the claim was not that Rf5 is the best move but that Rd1 is worse than Rf5. 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.