Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:25:29 04/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2001 at 09:57:39, Robert Hyatt 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). > >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. First of all the search depth *shows* 11 to 13 ply at most. Secondly it is theoretic impossible to search 19 ply fullwidth (13 ply software + 6 ply hardware) without hashtable last 6 plies. This is simple math. how bigtime it suffered from not using hashtable can be easily seen in game 2 for example. One of the moves Be4 which it made where Kasparov shortly was of the opinion that deep blue team 'cheated'. There there are many transpositions possible. Despite that deep blue doesn't search deeper as in openings positions where there are little transpositions possible. I think Kasparov later corrected that, but i'm not sure of it. In diep the average number of moves is 40 in middlegame on average (endgame of course not counted). That is because it sees many stupid nonsense moves which humans do not consider soon. With hashtable you would reduce that bigtime (or as you indicate reduce actually seach depth needed, whatever you do, you will get a better b.f. as result). Last of all i DID do experiment with DIEP searching fullwidth and not using last 6 ply hashtable. Could you do this with crafty too? Of course after you also added SE to it for the first so many ply minus 6 and also turn on more recapture extensions and turn on checks in qsearch to some extend (for example only first ply). Now we can compare. Please posts nodes and search depth needed. The good b.f. which DB seemingly has first few seconds is a result of that initially it can't put 480 chessprocessors to work very efficiently within a few seconds. Nevertheless, please do the experiment and report back. For diep i need billions of nodes for 10 ply already! And i'm pretty sure i sort my moves better as Deep Blue ever did! Not to mention my evaluation is way better! All those factors are completely irrelevant of course. The proof for their search depth is so obvious! Apart from that studying logfiles you see that they get fail high to some tactical moves at very explainable search depths. Like the tactical move Bf5 in game 6 is 8 ply for them. With recaptures and SE i also need 8 ply for that. In fact most programs which by default do recaptures already need 8 ply! >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. 6 ply in hardware + 13 ply in software = 19 ply fullwidth. Not 15-17. 11-13 ply is what they got. If you would add 6 ply in hardware to that that's 17-19 ply fullwidth! We only get that with nullmove AND hashtables! Please do the experiment Bob and as only programmer defending Deep Blue here it's very obvious that the facts are hard to ignore! > > >> 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 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.