Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 13:49:19 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 16:03:28, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 > > I would suggest that we take a close look at some of the positions from game 1 of the '97 match. It's the only game that DB lost. Could the micros have avoided some of those mistakes at tournament time controls? BTW, I don't think it's interesting to compare search depths with the IBM logfiles, as Bob has suggested. I think Amir's original point was that Junior searches as deeply as DB in the lines where it matters. --Peter
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.