Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:18:27 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! > I did not mean you in particular, and no offense meant. Experience tells that everything about Deep Blue's career of 12 games has already been said. Everyone made up his mind one way or the other, and that's it. >>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) > >* 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". > >* 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). > >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. > The answer is: look at the games, and study the moves. If you understand chess, and you understand how computers play chess, this can tell you a lot about the quality of the evaluation and how deep the program gets. I'm not saying everybody is qualified to do this, you obviously need to be some sort of expert to be able to judge. A grandmaster can identify a strong chess player by looking at his games. Do you believe he bases this judgement only on the result ? By the way, getting an advantage is quite an achievement in itself and you must play well to get it (unless it's handed to you as a free gift as in the DB match 6th game). It's a fact of life in chess that not all advantages end up as wins, and this doesn't reflect on the level of the player with the advantage. What do you think of a game where you have a disadvantage and win, as against Leko ? Also by the way, most of Junior's games in Dortmund were closed positions, not only the 2 losses. In at least two other games (Bareev, Akopian), it fought for a win, but got only a draw. This is a good description of what happened to Deep Blue in the 2nd game. Amir
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.