Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:58:58 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 02:43:05, blass uri 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. > >Micro were weaker than today's micro and it did not prove it in all the games. >It proved that it failed in tactics against Fritz3(p90) Uri... I have a problem. I just flipped a quarter I have, and it came up heads. Based on this, I _know_ it will come up nothing but heads every time. Even though the previous 40 times I flipped it, it only came up heads one other time and tails the rest (that is about DT's win lose ratio against other programs over a 10 year period). However, I am looking at this one 'flip' and the damned thing said "heads". How much do you think a coin that always comes up heads is worth? I'd like to sell this one. > >The question is if they can see deeper in the relevant lines and Amir believes >that they cannot(It is impossible to check because it is impossible to do games >between it and commercial of today). > >Uri I saw them blow out programs, year after year, by seeing deeper. Whether Amir believes that or not really doesn't matter, any more than whether you believe I have a coin that is going to come up heads from here on. This is not about _believing_. This is about _knowing_. None of you ever came to an ACM event where we had GM analysis and IM analysis of the ongoing games. Which gave a lot of insight into just how deeply they were seeing forcing lines. Everyone wants to use opinion, when there is plenty of fact around. Talk to IM Mike Valvo on ICC (beetle). Send email to David Levy or Hans Berliner. They _know_ what it can/could do... There are lots of others as well. I sat across the table from them for a few games. I sat with them for many others. I saw. I didn't "imagine".
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.