Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:19:21 04/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2001 at 09:34:18, Terry McCracken wrote: >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. Actually some lines diep searches up to 60 ply easily. 60 ply maximum search depth is for like a 9 ply search alrady valid. Deep blue had a hardware limit of 32 ply so in that respect i always search deeper as deep blue! >(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:) Yes like my 10 million move book automatically generated was. This book on average got out of book -2.0 or something against Kure / Noomen. >(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? Bad bishop goes wrong in a lot of programs, but many problems deep blue showed they do not do wrong. > 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. I am very sure all programs would do better. Because if you never play h6? and e6? then you definitely never get into the position where all programs also play g5? > 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. Let's not talk about kasparov's bad performance. However amazingly despite kasparov's childish play he managed again to get 50%. Of course his last game was a stupid mistake. Probably his advisor: frederic friedel, who knows shit from how chessprograms play, had analyzed for him with fritz and fritz3 probably didn't play very aggressive in those days and never would have played moves to open position. I'm not blaming Frederic at all in that, games before this deep blue played very passive and happily exchanged queens. The only one to blame is Kasparov. > 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. The search depth confusion from deep blue must get taken away forever. Please analyze the logfiles. >(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. In hardware you can't adress EGTBs. Do you know anyway what hardware processors are in fact? >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! No not at all. Even against nimzo1998 i score with nowadays diep already nearly 100% score. In 1998 nimzo 1998 was #1 at SSDF. I'm very sure others do the same against it. >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_. Some weak points of software has been removed. >However, IBM's Deep Blue was a "Supercomputer" and not a "Microcomputer"! But let's be clear here. The first version of deep blue, chiptest. It got 500k nps. It searched 8 ply with 500k nps. A program of nowadays with 500k nps gets way deeper. Acutally even at a quad xeon i only get 100k nps and search 11-13 ply only. But WITH more extensions as deep blue did. As i also extend loads of things last 6 plies where deep blue only did one extra ply near the qsearch if i read Hsu's paper very well. Note that this is a very important extra ply, but no 'dangerous' extensions, to quote Hsu. >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. The big PR offensive from IBM definitely has spreaded a lot of lies. Like in a 12 men endgame some IBM PR girls announced after game where deep blue drew kasparov (the 2 rooks versus 2 rooks endgame, kasparov black): "deep blue played perfect chess here as it was in its EGTBs". >Deep Blue should play Kramnik, but it won't happen for many reasons. I would have no problems with that. But i give you 0% chance. >One, yes they could lose and I think they would. Only DIEP would make a chance vs Kramnik. Just one thing very bad in a program, like bad bishops, and you lose games versus a well prepared humans because of it. Of course DIEP would be vulnerable in opening, but that's no big problem as most likely Kramnik is not going to show his normal openings lines anyway as he probably will think he wins anyway (like kasparov thought and he was nearly right). What would your opinion on deep blue be if kasparov had won the last game? >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. I think you know very little from what Hsu wrote technical about Deep Blue, you never studied its logfiles and you know nothing from computerchess in general. Not to mention algorithms! Really those logfiles from Deep Blue show a lot! Best regards, Vincent >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.