Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:30:30 05/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2001 at 09:57:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 07, 2001 at 06:15:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 06, 2001 at 16:11:11, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On May 06, 2001 at 14:44:40, Paul wrote: >>> >>>>On May 06, 2001 at 14:26:52, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 06, 2001 at 14:25:58, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 06, 2001 at 14:16:04, Paul wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 06, 2001 at 14:01:22, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 06, 2001 at 05:40:02, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 06, 2001 at 03:51:47, Paul wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On May 06, 2001 at 02:28:14, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I gave Deep Fritz to analyze similiar number of nodes to Deeper blue and Deep >>>>>>>>>>>Fritz seems to be clearly better in tactics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Deep Fritz needs only 191728 knodes to see the line Rf5+ Ke3 >>>>>>>>>>>It means only 1 second if I asuume 200,000,000 nodes per second. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I believe that Rf5+ failed low at depth 17 for Deeper blue for the reason Ke3. >>>>>>>>>>>The pv of deeper blue at smaller depthes is Rf5+ Ke2 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Deep Fritz probably does better extensions than Deeper blue because Deep Fritz >>>>>>>>>>>see big fail low at depth 16. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Deep fritz also can see another fail low for Rg8 at depth 22 when deeper blue >>>>>>>>>>>could get only depth 17 after similiar number of nodes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I do not believe that you lose more than 2-3 plies from null move pruning(my >>>>>>>>>>>test suggest that you do not lose even 1 ply at small depthes so I guess that >>>>>>>>>>>Deep Fritz can search deeper because it is a better software. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>kasparov - Deeper blue >>>>>>>>>>>4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Analysis by Deep Fritz: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I remember from the time this match was played that this was due to some bug >>>>>>>>>>which was subsequently corrected, so there's not much sense in discussing this >>>>>>>>>>position. Any other will do, but not this one. Even my program finds Rf5+ in >>>>>>>>>>seconds. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Groetjes, >>>>>>>>>>Paul >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I know about the bug >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I am not talking about finding Rf5 but about finding the reason that Rf5+ is >>>>>>>>>losing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I mean to find the fact that line Rf5+ Ke3 that is good for white. >>>>>>>>>Deeper blue could not see it at iteration 16 and the logfile suggests Rf5+ Ke2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Deeper blue had a fail low at iteration 17 and the logfile does not give a line >>>>>>>>>for Rf5. >>>>>>>>>I guess that it failed low because of Ke3. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The point is that Deeper blue is slower than top programs in failing low. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Deeper blue could not find Rf5+ Ke3 after 73 seconds when Deep Fritz can find it >>>>>>>>>in a few minutes on p800 and it means that it could find it in less than second >>>>>>>>>if it could search 200M nps. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think you're right Uri if you dragged out Deep Blue of May 1997 or at least >>>>>>>>close. >>>>>>>>But you have to remember it was 1997 and if my memory serves me correctly, >>>>>>>>Kasparov was very puzzled by Rf5+ as programms just didn't look at this move >>>>>>>>at that time, except for Deep Blue in such a short time frame. >>>>>>>>At least that's what I remeber from what Kasparov mentioned in his notes. Not >>>>>>>>the exact words, I'm not quoting what Kasparov said or wrote but just what I >>>>>>>>remember from that time, on the "Old Club Kasparov" hosted by IBM which is long >>>>>>>>gone. >>>>>>>>I also remember after many hours of analysis with "computers of the day" >>>>>>>>P6-200's, that Kasparov finally "understood" why Deep Blue played the "Human" >>>>>>>>looking move, Rf5+. >>>>>>>>Actually, I think Kasparov wasted too much energy trying to understand Deeper >>>>>>>>Blue which I believe exhausted him. Hence, his less than stellar preformance >>>>>>>>in Game 2 and the rest of the match. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Terry McCracken >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Deep Blue didn't play Rf5, it played Rd1! Uri wants to analyze the evaluation >>>>>>>out of the log of Deep Blue ignoring the bug. Seems impossible to me. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Paul >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe that the bug happened only after failing low on Rf5. >>>>>> >>>>>>The logfiles do not give a score for Rd1 so I believe that the bug is not >>>>>>relevant for Rd1 >>>>> >>>>>I mean of course is not relevant for the lines before Rd1 >>>>>> >>>>>>The last line of the logfile of game 1 begins with >>>>>>11(6)[Rf5](-260)v [find a move] >>>>>> >>>>>>I never see the words find a move in deeper blue in other cases and it suggests >>>>>>that the bug happened only after Deeper blue failed low. >>>>>> >>>>>>The line for Rd1 is also a short line when previous lines are long lines so I >>>>>>trust the analysis of deeper blue at depth<17. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Uri, you don't know what the bug was, I don't know what the bug was, and now out >>>>of all the positions you could analyze, you pick the one where it's certain that >>>>there is a bug in it. Why? >>>> >>>>Seems to me there are hundreds of other positions more useful & interesting for >>>>analysis, for example from the (by Deep Blue at least) excellently played game >>>>6? But if you want to ... go on by all means. :) >>>> >>>>Greetings, >>>>Paul >>> >>>I already analyzed another position from the first game and unfortunately nobody >>>responded to the analysis and the discussion was about the question if Deeper >>>blue did processing at the root. >>> >>>see http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?167877 >>> >>>Uri >> >>Uri, for all programmers you had proven the point very clearly. > > >No, he didn't "prove" anything at all. You can't take output from a program, >output that is incomplete due to the way they produce their PV, and then try to >draw conclusions from it. Any more than you can take evaluations and draw >conclusions from them without any idea of what the evaluation looks like >internally... It's hard to argue with scores produced Bob! Also it fits into the picture. I remember once you posted that they tuned their search parameters using 1 ply searches using automatic testing & tuning. That never worked for me actually. Not a single machine can tune my parameters like i can tune them! And i tune myself pretty when compared to what is possible! However that sort of tuning makes more sense to me when using preprocessor tables!
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.