Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 03:41:13 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
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. Hey can I misquote you on that? :) > >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 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.