Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:42:43 04/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2001 at 11:34:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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? May I remind you that we had a broken book there and we could not replace that wide book with our more selective book. And with learning disabled due to a problem I didn't notice, yes it would play the same opening. With the normal opening book, crafty will _never_ play the Sicilian opening as black. And it won't play losing lines as white. But I wasn't there and we had the problem... But come try it on ICC and show me how to get a winning line 3 games in a row with any program or book you care to use... > >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 :) That is too broad a statement. David Levy is/was a chess programmer. I'll bet you can't beat him at 5-1 time odds. IM Mike Valvo is another. Marty Hirsch is another. David Slate is another. This list can get quite long in fact... > >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. Joel Benjamin is _not_ a "very weak GM". His rating and tournament results prove this.. > >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! Joel played against it _every day_ working on the book and the evaluation. I don't know why you think they only tested it for a few games vs Rebel... > >I know *exactly* how an untested book performs. > >See the horrors that happened to me at IPCCC2001! > > >Best Regards, >Vincent >
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.