Author: blass uri
Date: 05:05:57 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 07:22:41, Graham Laight wrote: >I'm afraid I still feel that Junior could have come out ahead (instead of >level)in this tournament by beating Bareev and Khalifman - and possibly by not >losing with such apparent ease to Kramnik. Continuing the game against Anand >might possibly have gained an extra half point as well. > >I think that Amir has an aspiration to make his program demonstably better than >Deep Blue (this certainly comes across in his interviews published on the >Chessbase Website coverage of Dortmund (www.chessbase.com) before the Kramnik >game). If so, as a (hopefully!) impartial member of the viewing public, I'm >afraid to say that I've yet to be convinced. > >As evidence, I point firstly to the games against Bareev and Khalifman. On both >occasions when Deep Blue '97 gained an advantage over Gary Kasparov (who's a >better player than anyone at Dortmund was), it parlayed that advantage into >victory - whilst Deep Junior twice failed conspicuously to "slam in the lamb". > >I would also point to the game against Khalifman. Here we see Deep Junior lose >to a combination of blocked centre and king attack - classic anti computer >methods which have both been well known for a long time. They work because, in >this case, nothing short of truly massive search depth is going to help you to >make the correct moves. > >However, for both king attack and blocked centre, Deep Blue '97 demonstrated >that it's evaluation knowledge was able to adequately handle the challenge. I guess that the evaluation of Deep Junior could do better if Deep Junior could search the same number of nodes. I believe that Deep Junior is better than Deeper blue if you assume 200,000,000 nodes per second for deep Junior. Uri
This page took 0.02 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.