Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 13:03:28 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 14:08:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 11:38:01, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On July 18, 2000 at 10:58:51, Robert Hyatt 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 am not talking about "key move" at all. I am talking about doing a full-width >>>exhaustive search to depth 16-18 in the middlegame, in the same positions where >>>DB did 16-18 ply full-width searches. >>> >>>I don't believe _anybody_ can match their depth/speed. >> >>All fine but where are the promised positions from the log-files... >> >>Ed > > >I didn't "promise" any positions: Yes you are right after I read again. I thought you had some challenging positions for us poor micro users to compare. What a pity. Ed >>>>>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... > >It doesn't matter to me which positions we choose. I have the DB logs on my >notebook at home. I can pick a few if you want and give their depth. However >there is no chance anybody will get within 4 plies in 3 minutes so I am not >sure what we do there. Or do we look for positions with tactical tricks that >they find and we can't??? > >The original thread point was that Amir said DB wasn't going deeper than today's >programs. That is easy to prove/disprove as we have DB's logs...
This page took 0.08 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.