Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 07:36:05 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 10:28:50, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote: >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 I remember the Fischer-Spassky match quite well. Spassky being psyched out by Fischer. So much for contradictions... Ed >>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.