Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 21:51:49 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 21:58:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I would claim that point is nonsense. Chess is about playing the right moves. We have seen machines with >200 processors losing all the time from the micros. If memory serves me well no multi-processor system was able to win the world champion title since 1992, Deep Thought included. Chess isn't about ply-depth only. One little mistake and a game can be over no matter how many processors are added. Chess is about playing the right moves. So it would be very interesting to have a set of critical positions (not necessarily mistakes) from the DB-GK matches do a comparison. Ed
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.