Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 01:49:40 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 04:23:06, Amir Ban wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 01:52:05, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>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. >> > >Bah ! Wrong answer. You should have answered: Rebel. > >If and when your life is at stake, always trust yourself. Yes you are right. How about this answer: Crafty - Rebel NPS game 0-1 DB-Jr - Rebel 0-3 So much for speed... Better this way? Ed >Amir
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.