Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:25:13 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
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. > >To be continued...... I am sure :) > >Ed I am not even sure about the 25%. If DB has a 90% chance of beating every program there, and I think that is reasonable, then in a 5 round event, the probability of winning every round is .9 ^ 5 which is 60% for 5 rounds. At a WMCCC-type event, we go for maybe 10 rounds... that comes out to a 34% chance of winning all games. However, as I have mentioned before, I saw DT forfeit in round one at the last ACM event, and _still_ it won the tournament, regardless of the hardware others were using.
This page took 0.14 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.