Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:22:00 12/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2000 at 08:28:55, Osorio Meirelles wrote:
>
> How well would these programs play if they has the same speed of Deep
>Blue ? Would Deep Blue probably be crushed ? Any guesses on a 20 game
>match ?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Osorio
Deep blue searched between 11 and 13 ply, which fullwidth without
hash last 6 ply is an incredible achievement, as you can see in its
logfiles.
So we can talk long and get big arguments again, but basically
you need to press your processor in 0.60 hardware to compare it,
and i definitely have a too large evaluation to even think of
putting it in hardware, might not fit on the 0.60 chip :)
Not to mention that getting EGTB in search is gonna be tough also.
Hashtables, my program is BASED upon having hash, so pretty hard
to miss this too.
As deep blue was without hashtables and nullmove we can't compare
its NPS either with todays programs anyway, not to mention that
very little programs can run on 32 processors not to mention that
no one gets system time on 32 processor systems (with each
processor 16 hardware chess processors attached).
Best we can do is look to its move and see whether our progs make
so many mistakes. My personal opinion is that Kasparov must be send
to Mars for his FM a-look-like play, i mean if i would lose like
that against chessprograms with a few draws from english systems
missing chance after chance to win, then this is explained by:
"diepeveen just has 2254 FIDE, so i don't blink with my
eyes if he makes 5 to 6 mistakes a game, whereas the average
top grandmaster makes at most 1 to 2 bad moves a game".
How Kasparov managed to win game 1 in the second match
is still a big mystery for me, as he obviously was offering to
lose but the computer didn't take his generous offer and managed
to fatally weaken its pawn structure.
So we should instead focus on the many bad moves it played as excellently
described in issue june JICCA 1997 by Seirawan who gives move after move
a question mark from both kasparov and deep blue. Note that with ?! he
means that a move is dubious.
I might lose in national competition a game if i make 1 move
marked with ? or 2 with ?!. I'm just 2271 national rated, so national
master soon. Fide master i also get blindfolded, IM will be a bit
tougher though. To beat an IM i need to play a game with at most a
SINGLE ?! or ? from my side unless the IM is real old.
Basically the only reason why deep blue beated kasparov was because of
kasparov himself and that a4 move in game 6, opening the position.
I think in 1997 very
little PC programs played such aggressive moves, whereas nowadays
aggressive tuning of most programs is very common.
On the other hand i can't imagine a nowadays program that doesn't know
that a doubled pawn on g2 g3 or g7g6 isn't so bad something Deep Blue
is doing wrong in at least 2 games. Also first game it never gets
the idea of playing e5 in opening, unimaginable for me that any
nowadays program would prefer moves like e6? there. Bad moves like h6?
i might imagine if pawnstructure code of a program is weak or nonexisting.
So we basically can only conclude very few things:
a) search depth of deep blue was ok, 11 to 13 ply,
but not uncommon nowadays, though some programs like tiger and
rebel seem to forward prune immense amount of nodes, still they'll
get depths very comparable or deeper as this.
b) how do we ever compare loads of hardware with efficient
working software programs, those are nodes a second not comparable!
c) In this CCC group
we'll have only a bunch of nerds with except for a few exceptions like
an Uri Blass very little chess insight
to analyze any game, not to mention doing statements about the
the moves produced by deep blue; and if we basically we need to
rely on Seirawan's chess technical comment for the many obvious
openings setup mistakes made on both sides, thereby taking into account
that he wrote it seemingly pretty optimistic for IBM as he was paid
by them.
The IBM versus Kasparov match is clearly the only match in history that
drew a lot of attention without the games getting analyzed very well.
If i ask the average AI dude who talks about deep blue as if it's his
pocket machine whether he read some reports on the match, then i already
get a negative answer. Not to mention chess technical reports.
Everyone focusses on some silly comment from the side of Kasparov about IBM
cheating. Obviously that's only to cover his own dirty behind.
If you study the games it was not cheating at all. It was kasparov
who clearly on chessbase magazine 58 if i remember well who was doing
as if he played a 5 year old kid, without thinking of the consequences,
focussing on getting himself some media attention for a few 'exciting'
games.
But especially that last part: studying the games, never in history
has a match been so little studied as the ibm-kasparov games.
If i ask chessplayers whether they studied them, i always get negative
answers.
If i ask after the 20th match game Kasparov-Karpov Lyon 1990 then
most people will remember it. In the computerchess world we even are
regurarly busy with a position from this match: NOLOT #1 Nxh6!! Kasparov
Pathetic that such a great player has played such a few bad games against
IBM, well the first so many matches he played against the computer he could
get away with it even, but obviously game 6 in the match decided,
nevertheless: "Where are all those chesstechnical
analysis to call this match a serious match?"
Obviously is that we'll never see again a match again of Deep Blue by IBM
as it's buried forever, the simple reason being that stocks/shares of IBM
got up an arguable 22% right after deep blue won. If i look now at
the internet: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ibm&d=b
Then marketshare of IBM is 172 billion dollar.
22% of 172B = let's say around 35B dollar that's at stake playing
another match if they lose it their market share may drop that 22%
again as investors might get convinced that the new cpu's are not
so good as they thought they were...
And that deep blue was in fact hardware processor from 0.60 micron
was never clear to those dudes and i give you less as a 0% chance that
we'll ever see something playing under IBM-deep blue flag with some
camera's close, more likely the processors are given away to
some hardcore chesscomputer designers from which we can only
hope they'll play a few games with it on the internet, something
by the way promised by IBM which they never did of course.
Note that with nowadays big progress on many sides of the game
it's sure much tougher to win with an old program.
We could see that clearly at dutch open also where very courageously
Duck joined. He had made a NEW openingsbook for it which didn't
perform bad, but he searched 8 ply fullwidth or something.
So he obviously had some serious problems despite that some people
like me were real bad prepared. In a drawn line it was completely
outsearched to start with and basically that lost for it together with
some positional aspects, which both programs didn't understand too well
bye the way.
He was searching 8 ply against me over 10. Now that's on a nowadays
machine. So getting 11 to 13 for deep blue in 1997 fullwidth was real
good IMHO. I don't search 13 ply fullwidth for sure except pawn endgame,
yet i completely would annihilate deep blue for sure with DIEP,
especially seeing what it did do wrong, and not even caring for the fact
that my openingspreparement would be real bad.
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.