Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 22:52:05 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 20:07:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? > >:) I did answer the question. I said that DB would be the big favorite. But I assume we are in disagreement with the percentage which I estimate at 25% (based on the above) which is not much. To be continued...... I am sure :) Ed
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.