Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:12:36 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 19:38:01, blass uri wrote: >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 Based on what???
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.