Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:34:59 04/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2001 at 11:23:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 24, 2001 at 10:19:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>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! > > >DB had no such limit. I don't know where you got that from, but it wasn't >from the DB team or anything they wrote. They _claimed_ to search to 45-50 >plies along critical pathways due to singular extensions, which shoots that >"32 ply limit" down in flames... It might be a hardware limit not a software limit. Note i get on average always 60 ply lines at any given moment, even in blitz. up to 100 plies i see less. This is because i extend more as deep blue probably did. As everything is in software last few plies especially i trigger many extensions! >> >> >>>(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. > >However, _they_ had several GMs working on the opening book. I doubt Kure or >Noomen would claim to be better... Kure + Noomen definitely are better making chessprogram opening books as those GMs. Note most GMs play like children in lines they do not know and we all know how bad programs react on book. May i remind you crafty at the world champs playing Najdorf for 3 times and losing it 3 times chanceless, despite that in the Fritz game it had a few chances as fritz played some bad moves? Basically all those moves played by crafty there is what we could expect also if a GM works on its book! Junior book is also made by a GM i heart whispering in 1999. I do not know whether this is still sure, but i know that many lines in its book were not very good for it. Of course you are right in *claiming* that potentially a GM book *can* be better, but that's like me claiming that my chessprogram is infinitely better as any other program because i am a programmer with 2285 rating and i beat any other chessprogrammer with me 1 minute and he 5 minutes on the clock, as proven recently in IPCCC2001 :) Those 2 claims are very the same. Potentially i can write a program with way more chessknowledge as any author who doesn't have the masterclass experience which i have. This doesn't mean that within 1 year of work i do create a better program! In fact i'm already busy 7 years now and only now i feel it's getting real strong at tournament level! Now this GM who was said to have made the deep blue book is to start with a very weak GM. This is not relevant. But it also was a very old GM, so he probably knew nothing from computers. And learning to imagine how a program reacts on a game is hard. Also they only TESTED a few games with deep blue. I remember they played some blitz games against Rebel. Now that means that the book for sure was very UNTESTED! I know *exactly* how an untested book performs. See the horrors that happened to me at IPCCC2001! Best Regards, Vincent > > > >> >>>(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. > > >That is my point. > >Here is an excerpt from the log for game 1 in 1997: > > 9(6) #[Nd7](-17) -17 T=7 >Nb8d7 pc2c4 Pe7e6 pc4d5P Pe6d5p ph2h3 Bg4f3n bg2f3B Ng8f6 >10(6) #[Nd7](-15) -15 T=19 >Nb8d7 pc2c4 Pe7e6 pc4d5P Pe6d5p qd1b3 Ng8f6 pd2d4 Nd7b6 bc1g5 Bf8e7 >11(6) #[Nd7](-18) -18 T=62 >Nb8d7 pc2c4 Pe7e6 pd2d4 Pd5c4p nb1d2 Ng8f6 nf3e5 Nd7e5n pd4e5N >12(6)<ch> 'b3' > > >That 12(6) represents 12 plies of software search + all the normal >extensions added to it, plus singular extensions added on top of that. >Then another 6 plies of hardware search which included all normal >extensions except for singular extensions. Beyond that they did a >capture search with futility pruning. > >12+6 is _not_ 13. > >If you don't believe the interpretation of 12(6) then simply email anybody >on the deep blue team. > > > >> >>>(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. > >Certainly you can. Hsu just did not. And it isn't a limiting factor. If I >do a 14 ply search in Crafty, many lines extend to 15-20 plies. Yet I don't >probe beyond ply 14 to control the overhead. And I don't see anybody saying >that "Crafty can't use tablebases effectively." Most have said the way I do >them is better than what was done early in commercial programs... > > > >> >>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. > >So you beat Nimzo and by that know you can beat Deep Blue? I beat my chess >partner Gower all the time, so that proves I can probably beat Kasparov, I >suppose? > > > >> >>>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. > > > >Chiptest didn't search 8 plies. They did 9-10. I was there. Belle did 8-9 >plies at 160K nodes per second, no null-move or anything. > >> >>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". > >That is probably reasonable. I hit the egtbs when there are 16 pieces left >on the board. I have occasionally hit them with 20 pieces left. > >12 pieces is _definitely reaching them a lot. > > > >> >>>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. > >Vincent... come back to planet earth... hello........... > > > > >> >>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? > >It would _still_ be very strong. It _did_ beat Kasparov earlier in the match, >and drew some very difficult endgames. > > > >> >>>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! > >Why aren't you reading them? Instead of quoting the _wrong_ search depth? > > > > >> >>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.