Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:58:45 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 16:49:19, Peter Kappler wrote: >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 I would claim that point is nonsense. You only have to read their papers on DT and DB to see what their search was doing, extension-wise. It was quite sophisticated, as it proved over and over against micro programs in ACM events.
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.