Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 06:34:18 04/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2001 at 08:20:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On April 24, 2001 at 03:47:15, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>the best software that is not IBM.
>>
>>Suppose there is a match of 20 games at tournament time control
>>
>>I am interested to know how many people expect 20-0 for IBM
>>How many people expect 19.5-.5?....
>
>>If IBM expect to do better result then the average result that the public expect
>>then they can earn something from playing a match of 20 games with Deep Blue.
>>
>>I believe that a part of the public who read the claim that kasparov played like
>>an IM are not going to expect good result for IBM.>
>>Uri
>
>First of all IBM would get out of book every game with -1.0 pawn
>disadvantage (which is about the average of what Kure and Noomen
>get in tournaments, sometimes they get out of book with mate in XXX even).
>
>I would expect IBM to lose with 18-2.
>
>Let's be realistic
>
> a) IBM searched 11-13 ply in 97, nowadays programs search deeper
> b) their book is hell worse as nowadays books are
> c) positionally it never was good, it doesn't even
> know what a good bishop is nor when a doubled pawn is
> good (f2,g2,g3 pattern happened twice in games against kasparov)
> also it exchanges sometimes queens in a position where not exchanging
> wins for IBM
> d) hardly can use EGTBs
>
>So in *all* respects it is getting outgunned. Not to mention EGTBs.
>
>No one talked about that subject yet, but last so many plies they can't
>use EGTBs. They only can use them the first 5 or 6 ply, that's it.
>
>Though this is very good compared to not using them, this means simply
>that all exchanges towards a lost 5 men they will not detect.
>
>They lose with induction to everything. The level of software has increased
>bigtime when compared to 1997. Of course the strategical problems are
>still there and some positional problems are still there, but in
>computer-computer games you hardly can take advantage of that. Only
>a human versus a computer can!
>
>Best regards,
>Vincent
Hello Vincent, some of your data on IBM is faulty;
(a)IMB's Deep Blue 1997 version could search up to 22-24 plys in the middlegame!
No commercial program can do that at an average of 3min. per move.
(b) There opening book(s) were enormous and I'd bet larger than any programm
on the market. They would not disclose how large, but maybe Joel Benjamin
could help you out there:)
(c)Positionally Deep Blue was very good and certainly did know a good bishop
from a bad bishop! Yes, it tended to make some anti-positional moves but
how many programs today still don't?
I think you're talking about the first game, and I doubt there is software
on standard PC's that could do any better at this time.
In one game Kasparov drew DB it was due to the fact he exchanged down Queens
when keeping them on the board would have been most likely winning for him.
However, DB was all to ready to swap down, so the computer erred as well.
So I agree with you up to a point. Also I may agree with you to a point that
DB did not always handle good versus bad bishops perfectly, but again this
can still be a problem with chess programms, then and now.
(d) EGTB's, really! Did you not know that IBM's Deep Blue in 1997 was plugged
into databases with over 3,000,000 lines? Man, now why would it need to rely
on only 5 man tablebases. Besides, Ken Tompson had also did his part for DB.
They lose with induction to everything. The level of software has increased
bigtime when compared to 1997. Of course the strategical problems are
still there and some positional problems are still there, but in
computer-computer games you hardly can take advantage of that. Only
a human versus a computer can!
Excuse me, They lose with the induction to everthing? You must be joking!
As for the rest, I agree software has made a great deal of progress since
1997 and what you say in this paragraph I mostly agree with, on _PC's_.
However, IBM's Deep Blue was a "Supercomputer" and not a "Microcomputer"!
But if you think for one moment the chess programms and and the PC's they
run on today, even the multi-processors and their respective programms, eg;
Deep Fritz, Junior or Shredder including EGTB's, could topple Deep Blue,
you are dreaming in "Technocolor" my friend.
Deep Blue should play Kramnik, but it won't happen for many reasons.
One, yes they could lose and I think they would.
Two, they would _Never_ agree on Kramnik having access to Deep Blue to study
and train with before their match, they would want to keep everthing secret
to have a chance to win as well as set it up to play Kramnik this time instead
of Kasparov.
Now I think _you_ should be realistic.
Best Regards,
Terry McCracken
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.