Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: But Not Yet As Good As Deep Blue '97

Author: blass uri

Date: 16:38:01 07/17/00

Go up one level in this thread


On July 17, 2000 at 19:10:29, KarinsDad wrote:

>On July 17, 2000 at 11:59:35, blass uri wrote:
>
>>On July 17, 2000 at 09:32:18, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>Deeper blue had one significant disadvantage.
>>They had no time to test their evaluation.
>>
>>
>>
>>  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
>>
>>
>>I think that these things are not relevant in the games that it lost.
>>I think that in the game against kramnik the mistake of deep Junior was Kh8 and
>>Deep Junior could see 4 plies after it that it is in trouble.
>
>You seem to be contradicting yourself.
>
>You are stating that the lack of the king safety failure due to the event
>horizon is not relevant and then turn around and state the DJ found out it was
>in trouble 4 ply later (once king safety failure was in scope of the event
>horizon).
>
>4 Ply is 6^4 or about 1300x faster hardware required.

I disagree
computers can see 4 plies in the important lines often by being  50-100 times
faster or even less than it.

The 4 plies are not quiet moves so I will not be surprised if being only 20
times faster is enough.

 Or 2000x more processors.
>Event horizon for king safety is totally relevant here, otherwise, DJ would have
>probably played a different move.
>
>If I was a GM, I would attempt to add positional elements that the program would
>not detect until way later in the game such as permanent weaknesses for the
>program and permanent strengths for the GM.

I agree that adding knowledge is important but my point was that I believe that
Deep Junior is better than Deeper blue based on equal numbers of nps

Uri



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.