Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:32:18 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 08:05:57, blass uri wrote: >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 I believe pigs can fly. But only if you increase the density of the atmosphere by a factor of 10,000 or so. DB has two almost insurmountable advantages: (1) it is faster than anything is going to be for a _long_ time; (2) using special-purpose hardware they did everything in the eval that was suggested by GM players, because they could do so with no speed penalty. DJ and every other PC program has _many_ "concessions" in the evaluation due to speed considerations. DJ's king safety would fail if it was 1,000 times faster... because there are some things that speed won't help until we reach the point where the computer can see 30-50 plies into the future. You either understand the Stonewall (and its kin) or you get beat by it, regardless of how deep you can see. I don't claim to have solved this either, but I don't see Crafty losing Stonewall games on ICC today, where 3 years ago it was getting killed by this attack, and my defense was to hack the book repeatedly. It will certainly lose one every now and then as my randomness (on ICC) will occasionally cause it to play a stonewall as black. But book learning closes that hole, and once out of book, it doesn't have great difficulty avoiding the problem pretty well. There are a couple of ICC "regulars" that are a problem for computers, cptnbluebear is one, and insight is another. cptnbluebear doesn't play crafty much any more because other programs are easier to 'stonewall'. Insight still plays a lot, but he _rarely_ wins. He seems to primarily play for draws, which are easier to do, but still very difficult to pull off. I've done this with special eval code, not with speed... and I have a long way to go myself...
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.