Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes
Date: 07:28:50 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 00:51:49, Ed Schröder wrote: >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. I don´t believe in psychology.I believe in good moves. Bobby Fischer > >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 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.