Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:07:55 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 16:38:18, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 19, 2000 at 14:12:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 19, 2000 at 12:53:59, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On July 19, 2000 at 12:04:25, Robert Hyatt 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. >>>> >>>>And? Let's try the following dates: >>>> >>>>1983, 1986 (both cray machines) >>>> >>>>1989, special purpose machine >>>> >>>>1992, no "big iron" present (cray blitz, deep thought). >>>> >>>>1995 DT lost one game. >>>> >>>>So your statement, while true, is not exactly revealing of what went on. My >>>>program is not doing badly today. It is (except for wild null move R) very >>>>similar to Cray Blitz of 1995 in terms of search extensions and knowledge >>>>(except I am not yet using singular extensions as I did in 1995 CB). I don't >>>>think the micros were as far ahead of the 'big iron' as you want to believe. >>>>You think it was all hardware. It wasn't. And I agree that it still isn't >>>>today. But a better program, on faster hardware, will beat a good program on >>>>slow hardware most (but not all) of the time. >>> >>>We have been going through this issue how many times? :) >>> >>>Fact is this is the year 2000 five years after Hong Kong where everybody >>>included me expected DT to become the new world champion due to its huge >>>hardware advantage. It did not happen. >>> >>>I don't see any reason why this could not happen again. >>> >>> >> >> >>I don't either. But take the following scenario: Someone walks up to you and >>says that all the programs in the world are going to gather, including the 97 >>version of deep blue, and they are going to play a round-robin chess tournament. >>You have to pick one program to win the event. If you are wrong, you lose your >>head. You _must_ bet on one program to win, you have no other choice. >> >>Who do _you_ bet on? To me it is a no-brainer... >> >>I wouldn't be happy having to bet on DB, but I can't think of anyone that would >>have a better chance to win, even though we _know_ that "crap happens" and any >>program can lose a game under the right circumstances. >> >>But what about probability? I think it would be open and shut to pick the >>program with the best chance, with no thought at all required. >> >>And yes, there would be a significant chance that you will lose your head. But >>if you pick anybody _but_ DB, the probability goes up dramatically that you will >>one day star in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow". :) > >I have a more realistic scenario. Micro's have made tremendous progress >the last years. Imagine that all the programs which participarted last >year in Paderborn would meet again including DB. Micro's will enter with >more multi-processor systems than last year. In that extremely strong >field it's not unlikely DB will lose one or two games + a couple of draws. >Okay, worst scenario but quite well possible. If this happens your end up >on place 5-7 or so. Like last year in Paderborn not always the strongest >hardware wins. A simple Pentium 550 ended number 1 despite of the many >multi-processors around. Faster hardware makes you a big favorite but that >doesn't mean you will win as Hong Kong has proven so convincingly. > >Ed > > I agree. But you didn't answer my question. With your head hanging in the balance, _who_ would you pick to win such a tournament? :)
This page took 0.07 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.