Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:00:25 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 02:09:14, blass uri wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 02:00:31, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On July 17, 2000 at 20:08:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 17, 2000 at 17:02:22, Peter Kappler 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 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. >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>>I must say I'm skeptical, though I would have a good laugh if it were true. >>>> >>>>Are you aware of any positions from the 2nd Kasparov-DB match where Junior (or >>>>any other micro) plays a clearly better move than DB? Not that this would >>>>conclusively prove a thing - it would just be interesting. >>>> >>>>--Peter >>> >>>Or we can take a few of the positions from the DB log files and try them on >>>"top programs". I'm not aware of any "top program" that can do 16-18 plies >>>in the middlegame... >> >>Please post these positions that would be fun and you might be surprised >>about the outcome. But the key-moves must be clear as there should be no >>discussion what is the best move. I for example don't believe the Rc6 vs >>Rc7 is a good position as this is a case of 0.10 (or so) in evaluation. >> >>Ed > >I think that the point of Bob is that Deeper blue did deeper search than Deep >Junior when Amir claimed: > >"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." > >I think that the question is if to believe the 16-18 brute force search(claimed >by IBM). > >I think that Amir does not believe it and there is no possibility to check when >Deeper is dead and there is no commercial Deep blue chip. > >Uri What is there to 'check'? How can you tell if Crafty actually searches 13 plies when it says it does? Ditto for any commercial program where you don't have source code? I have no doubt their search depth numbers are accurate. They always were comparable to mine when we compared results at particular depths.
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.