Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:56:19 01/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2001 at 10:39:18, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I can add that Crafty17.14 as chessbase enginefound Ne2 at depth 11 and did not change its mind at depth 12 and 13. I tried to give it the position after g3 It considers f3 as best at depth 15(score 0.39 for black) but I guess that it is going to find kasparov's move in the game(Rd5) because it considers Rd5 for a very long time at depth 15. I remember that the score of other programs dropped significantly after g3 Rd5 when I gave them to search. They did not see a winning advantage for black but they saw a big score of about 0.8 for black after some search from the position after g3 Rd5(I did not give them many hours and I used only p200MMX) 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.