Author: blass uri
Date: 15:51:27 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 18:13:04, Graham Laight wrote: >On July 17, 2000 at 16:09:09, Amir Ban 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 Kramnik. 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. >>>Indeed, in game 2 in '97, Deep Blue not only handled the blocked centre, it >>>turned it into a win! >>> >>>It took Deep Blue 2 attempts to beat Gary Kasparov, the world's best player - >>>maybe another year of work will push Deep Junior to a position where it can try >>>to win these tournaments, instead of settling for a middling position. >>> >>>But let's not be completely churlish - Dortmund 2000 was indeed a fantastic >>>performance by Deep Junior - and a landmark in computer chess history, since >>>here is both a computer and a program which one can buy in the shops! >> >>I disagree with most of this, but it's your opinion, and if experience teaches >>us anything, it's useless to argue. > >I _do_ change my mind about things. For example, earlier this year there was a >debate about whether the SSDF ratings were inflated. > >Here are the top 3 computers on the current (April 2000) list (using 450 MHz): > >Computer Rating Error Margin >======== ====== ============ > >Fritz 2721 + - 38 >Junior 2689 + - 30 >Tiger 2671 + - 32 > >I admit it took quite a debate, but I'm now willing to concede that, compared to >FIDE ELO ratings, these ratings are too high. Also, I am now willing to admit >that a stronger performance against other computers does not necessarily mean a >stronger performance against top human players. > >Sometimes, some people ARE willing to listen to what the others are saying! > >>For the record, I'm not trying to prove that I'm better than Deep Blue. I think >>I've already shown this some time ago, and I'm not the only one who can say so >>either. > >This may be true - but if it is than I, trying to be as impartial as I can be, >have to honestly say that it's not clear to me. > >>Looking at the (very few) games of DB, I don't see that it had either better >>evaluation or deeper search than today's top programs. >> >>Amir > >Fine - but at the risk of being repetitive, let me briefly restate the evidence >that points to it having better evaluation (and probably a deeper search): > >* It won a 6 game exhibition against the greatest chess player in history >(Junior came "equal" in 9 games against lower rated opposition) This comparison is not fair. Deeper blue was not public and kasparov could not play against it or something similiar in order to learn the weaknesses. > >* Junior failed to win 2 games in which it had a significant advantage, wheras, >in 1997, once it was ahead, Deep Blue never failed to "slam in the lamb". Deeper blue won the games because of mistakes that are not typical for kasparov[resigning in a draw position and going for a line that he was not ready for(otherwise he could avoid thinking in a theoretic position)] > >* Against Kramnik, Junior fell heavily to the blocked centre, and the king >attack. Deep Blue actually won one of its games from a blocked centre position >(game 2, '97). kramnik could prepare against Deep Junior at home. Kasparov could not do the same against Deeper blue. > >As a mere hobby observer, you can surely see why I might not feel that Junior's >equality (or improvement) in evaluation or search depth have been clearly >demonstrated to me. I agree that Junior's superiority was not demonstrated but the opposite also was not demonstrated. It will be interesting to do a match between Deep blue chip and Deep Junior. The question is how much money does hsu need for the match. If he is sure that deep blue chip that is similiar to deeper blue is clearly better than Deep Junior then I guess that he may get the money that he needs from a bet about the winner in the match. 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.