Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:57:39 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). That is pretty funny. I use a very simple to create book, and I don't get out of book that badly in _every_ game. Not even every other game. > >I would expect IBM to lose with 18-2. > >Let's be realistic Yes, let's. :) 18-2 is pretty funny. > > a) IBM searched 11-13 ply in 97, nowadays programs search deeper Every time you make that statement I am going to correct it. From the log files of the 1997 match we _know_ they searched 15-17 plies deep. Not 11-13. 15-17 in the middlegame, more in the endgame. I don't know where you get the 11-13 nor why you keep saying it when the log files clearly show that is wrong. > 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 Let me know when you or your program beats Kasparov in a standard game. Or even when you _draw_ him. Then tell me how weak they played positionally. > d) hardly can use EGTBs "Hardly"??? used them just like I do. They used them _before_ I did in fact. They were using them in the late 1980's. Just like HiTech did. And others. > >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. They use them in the first 11-13 plies. Which is _exactly_ how I use them. I don't probe in the q-search. I don't probe beyond the basic nominal search depth. It works fine for me. It works fine for them. They don't do it in the hardware part of the search, which means the last 4-6 plies plus q-search. That is _not_ a problem since it works well for me. > >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. And if you probe in the q-search you will get killed tactically when there are only 6-10 pieces on the board. You will lose _several_ plies. I know. I have been there. > >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 Your "induction" is broken. Make that "non-existent". HiTech or Cray Blitz won't lose to "everything" today by any wild stretch. Much less Deep Blue. The jealousy directed at this program/project by chess programmers (some anyway) is remarkable... the speculation about how it operates is even more remarkable. And finally the amount of disinformation about it is unbelievable.
This page took 0.01 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.