Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Some analysis of Deep Fritz for kasparov-deeper blue first game

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 13:23:55 05/07/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 07, 2001 at 15:10:13, Uri Blass wrote:

>On May 07, 2001 at 14:29:05, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On May 07, 2001 at 12:40:22, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>For me difference of more than +2 in the evaluation of Deeper blue and Crafty is
>>>convincing.
>>>
>>>I am not talking about the difference of 1.7 and 1.4.
>>>There is even a difference of more than 1 pawn between Deep Fritz's evaluation
>>>and Crafty's evaluation but Fritz can find the right pv.
>>
>>Just listen to what you just said.  There is a difference of more than one pawn
>>but DF has the right PV.
>
>Difference of more than 1 pawn is not difference of more than 2 pawns and the
>difference between Deeper blue and crafty was of more than 2 pawns.

Your point would be?  I have seen Crafty play Gambit Tiger 1.0 and have a
difference of _three_ pawns between their scores.


>
>Difference of more than 1 pawn can be a result of different evaluation but
>difference of more than 2 pawns is usually result of tactics.

Nope.  Just try Gambit Tiger 1.0 and Crafty on some similar and wide-open
positions.  2 pawns will barely get you started.  You will see 3 pawn
differences at times...  Purely positional, too, I might add...



>
>
>  With DB you can _not_ see the PV.  The first moves
>>are probably reasonable.  The moves at the end might or might not be reasonable,
>>and the last 6 plies + extensions + captures are not seen _ever_.
>
>I mean to the second move in the pv that is not at the end of the pv and is
>almost the start of the pv when I say that deep blue has not the right pv
>Rf5+ Ke2... is the wrong pv of deeper blue.

Maybe.  Maybe Ke2 and Ke3 are equivalent there.  Remember the fail low of
Crafty was less than half a pawn, which means that the difference between
the two moves is not huge and black is already lost...



>
>Rf5+ Ke3... is the right pv after Rf5+.
>>
>>Which simply shows that you can _not_ compare DB to _anything_ without all the
>>information...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I cannot say 1.7 of Crafty is better than 1.4 of Deeper blue but I can say that
>>>4.x of Crafty and 3.x of other programs are better than 1.x of deeper blue and
>>>the evaluation of deeper blue was 1.x if you look at depth 15(the depth that
>>>Crafty found the line with Ke3)
>>
>>Count the pieces on the board, then look at king safety, and everything else.
>>Then you can _guess_ at what DB was evaluating compared to Crafty and the other
>>micro programs.  But you can only _guess_.  You are assuming they are seeing
>>_less_.  What if they are seeing _more_???  How can you tell they aren't?  You
>>can't.  It is _all_ a guess...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I am almost sure that Crafty can beat Deeper blue if Crafty searches the same
>>>depthes that deeper blue searched and my guess is that Crafty on an alpha is
>>>clearly better than deeper blue.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>
>>Not a chance.  It would be competitive, but only competitive, in that it would
>>not get run off the board in a match.  It would lose decisively however...
>>
>>I ran a 10 game set vs Cray Blitz about a year ago (right after I first got the
>>quad xeon).  I did it as a favor for someone wanting to test a T90 for
>>comparison to something I can't mention.  I played the games at a time control
>>of 60 moves in 30 minutes.  Cray Blitz won 6 and drew 3.  There were only a
>>couple of games that were tactical busts...  most were just endgame losses where
>>the Cray searched incredibly deep with its speed advantage...
>>
>>I call that a pretty decisive result.  And that same program got stomped by the
>>predecessor of Deep Blue.
>
>There was only one game when Cray blitz with no bugs lost and one game proves
>nothing.
>
>Uri


We lost to them at least three times.  The first loss was not necessarily a
bug, just a non-reproducible move.  I also had lots of private communications
with them as they were busy solving difficult tactical positions as well, and
they were _always_ far faster/better than we were, and we weren't slouches...



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.