Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:21:49 04/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2001 at 13:59:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 24, 2001 at 13:37:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 24, 2001 at 11:25:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>No it doesn't. Here is yet another log excerpt from an early middlegame >>position: >> >> 5(5)[axb5](60) 60 T=1 >>pa4b5P Pa6b5p ra2a7 Ra8a7r bc5a7R >> 6(5)[axb5](57) 57 T=1 >>pa4b5P Pa6b5p ra2a7 Ra8a7r bc5a7R >> 7(5) #[axb5](51)##################################### 51 T=2 >>pa4b5P Pa6b5p ra2a6 Ra8a6r ra1a6R Nd6b7 bc5e3 Rc8a8 >> 8(6) #[axb5](46)##################################### 46 T=7 >>pa4b5P Pa6b5p ra2a6 Nd6b7 bc5e3 Nb7d6 ra6a7 Bf8e7 >> 9(6) #[axb5](49)#################################### 49 T=55 >>pa4b5P Pa6b5p ra2a6 Nd6b7 bc5b6 Ra8a6r ra1a6R Nb7d6 >>10(6) #[axb5](49)##################################### 49 T=160 >>pa4b5P Pa6b5p ra2a6 Nd6b7 bc5f8B Qe8f8b ng3f5 Ra8a6r ra1a6R Rc8b8 >>11(6) #[axb5](49)#[Nf5](50) 50 T=308 >>ng3f5 Nd6f5n pe4f5N Pb5a4p bc2a4P Bd7a4b ra2a4B Qe8d7 bc5f8B Rc8f8b pf5f6 Qd7d5p > >Very confusing is whether it's a 11 ply PV or 12 ply pv. > >the moves with n or N behind it means captures. DB extends in software >nearly all captures. I see around 3 non capturing moves here. > >So 5 or 6 ply in software + capture extensions >(either recapture extensions or SE) >+ 6 ply in hardware. > >Very logical. > >note it's a 12 ply PV you see here *not* a 11 ply pv. > >I get way longer lines at 12 ply with extensions turned on as this :) > >>qf2g3 Pg7g5 >>--------------------------------------- >>--> 33. Nf5 <-- 7/65:41 >>--------------------------------------- > >This is caused by 30 diff processors with SE implemented. >I have those huge lines too in DIEP when i turn on all extensions! > >No big deal. > >If 6(6) would mean 6 ply in software and 6 ply in hardware, >then why do we see only 5 ply line? > >Even if you overwrite on an SP computer you still get 6 ply! > >Now the theoretic impossibility of searching 17 ply fullwidth >*with* all those extensions the first 11 ply. > >Apart that each search line must be like 15 ply then or so, >It's going to use up a lot of nodes. > >For deep blue it would cost around 5^6 more as the nodes they got in 1997! > >>Again I reiterate, the notation 11(6) means 11 plies in software search, >>6 plies in the hardware, plus the quiescence in hardware. There is _no_ >>argument with this. Simply ask any of the DB guys. 11(6) is a total of >>17 plies of search. > >Noop it is not Bob. It is 11 or 12 plies of search from which 6 ply >in hardware. Makes sense. Logical and clearly visible from the lines. > >The first few ply > >Note that if it would be 11 ply of search with pruning + 6 ply in hardware, >then deep blue is the tactical worst program in history as it sees >Bf5 in game 6 at 8(6) which would be 14 ply then, which doesn't make >sense! Not even if you forward prune a lot! Here is the relevant position from the game and the logfile of IBM for this position: [D]r1k2b1r/p2nq1p1/2b1p1Bp/1p1n4/3P4/3Q1NB1/1PP2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1 3(4) 30^ T=0 bg6f5 Qe7b4 3(5) 48 T=0 bg6f5 Qe7b4 4(5) 48 T=0 bg6f5 Qe7b4 5(5)[Bf5](18) 18v T=0 bg6f5 Qe7b4 re1e6P 5(5)[Bf5](54)[c4](78) 78^ T=0 pc2c4 Nd5b4 5(5)[c4](97) 97 T=1 pc2c4 Nd5b4 6(5)[c4](87) 87 T=2 pc2c4 Nd5b4 qd3c3 7(5) #[c4](87)##################################################### 87 T=3 pc2c4 Nd5b4 qd3e2 Pb5c4p qe2c4P Nd7b6 8(6) #[c4](57) 57v T=8 pc2c4 Nd5b4 qd3e2 Pb5c4p qe2c4P Nd7b6 qc4c6B Nb4c6q ra1a7P Nc6a7r 8(6) #[c4](56)#[Bf5](117) 117^ T=16 bg6f5 Kc8b7 re1e6P Qe7b4 re6c6B Kb7c6r bf5d7N Kc6d7b nf3e5 Kd7e6 ne5g6 Qb4b2p qd3e4 8(6) #[Bf5](148) 148^ T=18 bg6f5 Kc8b7 re1e6P Qe7b4 re6c6B Kb7c6r bf5d7N Kc6d7b qd3f5 Kd7c6 qf5e6 Kc6b7 qe6d5N 8(6) #[Bf5](137)##################################################### 137 T=37 bg6f5 Pe6f5b re1e7Q Bf8e7r pc2c4 Pb5c4p qd3c4P Nd5b4 ra1a4 Kc8b7 9(6) #[Bf5](137)#[TIMEOUT] 137 T=184 bg6f5 Pe6f5b re1e7Q Nd5e7r qd3c3 Pa7a5 ra1a5P Ra8a5r qc3a5R Ne7d5 qa5a6 Bc6b7 qa6e6 Kc8d8 qe6f5P The question is if not finding Bf5 at depth 12 make sense(Deeper blue jumped from 12 to 14). I believe that it make sense if you have a different evaluation function. Winning the queen does not mean winning the game and it is possible that a program will prefer other ideas for positional reasons. Uri
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.