Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 07:09:59 01/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2001 at 00:53:10, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 05, 2001 at 23:51:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 05, 2001 at 14:28:21, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 05, 2001 at 14:03:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 05, 2001 at 07:50:42, Mark Schreiber wrote: >>>> >>>>>In the match with v/d Wiel, Rebel is running on P3 866 MHz. Using a faster >>>>>computer would be an improvemnt. Maybe a P4 1.5 GHz. They could also improve >>>>>Rebel to run on dual or multi processor like Junior. The Junior that ran on an 8 >>>>>processor at Dortmund would clobber v/d Wiel. At Dortmund, Junior performed at >>>>>Fide 2700. >>>> >>>> >>>>I doubt _any_ program will "clobber" him. Speed isn't the only issue when you >>>>play a computer-savvy GM. If your program has a hole (and all current programs >>>>have many of them) then speed isn't going to help a bit if the GM knows what he >>>>is doing. >>> >>>I believe that speed is going to help because the holes of chess programs can be >>>covered by deeper search in part of the cases. >>> >>>There are positions when speed will practically not help but getting this >>>positions may be prevented if the computer is faster. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>We've been waiting for this to happen for 30 years. We aren't there yet. I >>don't think we will be there in another 30 years. The holes _must_ be filled >>or the programs are going to have problems with anti-computer humans _forever_ >>no matter how fast they go. DB1 should have proven that. it was 200X faster >>than the fastest program of today. And it fell into the same problems in the >>first Kasparov match. > >It did not prove it. > >Kasparov is a better player than Van der Wiel and it is possible that DB1 could >win against Van der Wiel. > >I also believe that the programs of today have better positional knowledge than >DB1 and better pruning rules that help them to search deeper so the 200x faster >may be misleading. > >Here is a position(from game 5 of the match) when I believe that DB1 made a >tactical mistake(I did not try to prove it by a tree but it is my impression). > >[D]3r2k1/p4bp1/5q1p/8/3Npp2/1PQ5/P2R1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1 > >White played g3 when I believe that the only move is Ne2 >The tactics is quite(white has a lot of possibilities in every move) and this is >the reason that the singular extensions could not help DB1. > >I think that it may be interesting to know how much time do programs need to >find Ne2 and what is the depth that programs of today need to see significant >difference between g3 and Ne2. > >I guess that a lot of program may find Ne2 in some minutes(they will not see >tactical difference between Ne2 and g3 but they will see a positional >difference) > >I guess that part of them may see a difference of at least 1/2 pawn if you give >them 3*200=600 minutes on fast hardware(I mean a difference of at least 1/2 pawn >between their score and their score if they investigate only g3 at the same >depth). > >A difference of 1/2 pawn means that they will not see that g3 is a losing move >but they will see big positional reasons not to play it. > >It will be interesting to do the experiment. > >Uri Chezzz locks on Ne2 after 44 secs on my machine, and it never considers g3. It hasn't found an especially good score, though. -0.20 for white, so I will let it search for a full 10 hours or so.
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.