Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:39:18 01/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2001 at 10:29:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 don't believe so. Kasparov used similar ideas to defeat DB1. DB 1 didn't >really understand cramped/blocked positions at all. And if it searched 200B >nodes per second, it would be a tactical monster but would be defanged by >closed positions. It wouldn't have any more luck if it was 1000 times faster >if the evaluation had that big a hole. > > >> >>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. >> > >This is interesting. Until depth=11 crafty likes h3. But at >depth=11, it switches to g3. And it _knows_ that king safety is >important. Something about g3 seems to be almost forced here for >some reason. It would seem to me that Ne2 invites f3 >and trouble. It bounced back to h3 at depth=12, but the scores >are _very_ close (g3 vs h3). How much time did you give it? I expect it to see more problems with g3 after deeper search and to find Ne2. Uri
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.