Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Wanted: Deep Blue vs. today's top programs recap

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 13:30:07 08/27/01

Go up one level in this thread


On August 27, 2001 at 15:42:22, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>Even blindfolded my DIEP plays better as that Deep Blue.
>
>Seirawan has only put question marks at really horrible moves.
>You CAN win a game by playing bad moves if you first get a good positoin.
>
>DB blows it chances *before* it gets a good position. In fact even
>IF it has a good position it blows it.


Exactly when did it do this?  It blew enough positions to beat Kasparov.
And the other GMs it played exhibitions against.  And on back thru the
early 90's and late 80's against other strong programs...  So I guess I
missed this.

And I also missed the major computer tournament your program won, to show
its superiority.





>
>Further in nowadays WMCCCs moves get criticized which back in 1997 would
>receive a '!' for a program playing them. The level is much higher now
>from computerchess.
>


no it isn't.  It is higher.  Not "much higher".  There were brilliant moves
and games back then too.  But back to Diep.  Do I need to pick some truly
horrible moves from the recent WMCCC event to show you?  Or do you already
know some of them?

If your program plays stupid moves, then it seems unreasonable to goad someone
else when their program plays stupid moves too.  Pot and Kettle...  etc...





>Back in 1997 even 1200 rated dudes commented. Now the comment comes from
>IMs, FMs, and correspondence players like Uri Blass.
>


This is wrong.  We had IM and GM commentators at _every_ ACM event I
attended.



>I remember many beginners putting a '!' behind the Be4 move from
>deep blue in game 2. Well it is a MISTAKE that move. It deserves a
>questionmark instead of an exclamation mark. The move Qb6 there
>wins by force, you get a won opposite bishop endgame at least after
>Qb6, if black doesn't exchange though he loses even more pawns.
>
>After Be4 black can still draw as Seirawan shows. In fact in the GAME
>it was even possible to draw. After Qb6 it wasn't.
>
>However < 2000 rated of course do not pick this up. They think all
>opposite bishop endgames are a draw and then give Qb6 a questionmark.
>
>Of course Kasparov wanted to distract people from how bad he had played
>that game, and just murmured something about Karpov playing,
>in fact Kasparov's murmuring and loud complaining worked great,
>still even today the beginners write over what kasparov said.
>
>The Be4 move is NOT played by Karpov. In contradiction. Karpov would
>play Qb6 there as it gets white at least a won opposite bishop endgame,
>and Karpov would be of course the first to realize this!
>
>Now that type of the level of analysis back in 1997, way lower
>type of level than nowadays, that's what people forget.


The 1997 analysis was by GrandMasters.  I'm not sure what you are talking
about.  They _often_ don't understand Kasparov's moves.  Moves that some
criticized (DB moves) Kasparov would say "that was the _only_ move it could
play."  Who to trust?  I go with the stronger player, generally.




>
>Oh the holy past, Fischer would beat nowadays Kramnik easily,
>that kind of dumb chatter i don't want to join.
>
>Of course Kramnik has had better training, better database possibilities,
>better openingstraining, more examples and better trainers and
>better technique.
>
>The guy would kick with induction on all terrains one of the great
>hero's of the past of course. Not because such a hero is old now, but
>simply because Kramnik is way better.
>
>It's like this in computerchess too.
>
>A nowadays AMD K7 1.2Ghz dual completely on paper is already way
>faster than any Cray from a year of 15 back. Including your own cray.
>
>How comes?

It isn't.  Your math is really bad here.  You are looking at clock
frequency.  That isn't the only measure of performance.  When a PC
can read 32 bytes and write 16 bytes in one clock cycle (per processor)
and when it can do multiple adds and subtracts and vector and scalar
operations in one cycle, _then_ the computational people out here will
agree the PCs are faster.  Today?  Not a chance in Hades...






>
>Same is true for software. Software from today simply beats old
>software. Deep Blue is in fact a software program (of course it was
>put into hardware, let's forget that for a while), but nowadays
>software of course completely annihilates anything from the past.

I played some games vs Cray Blitz using Crafty.  I reported this earlier
this year.  Crafty did poorly.  Cray Blitz hasn't been touched since 1994
or so, its hardware is no faster (T932).  And it stomped my quad xeon.





>
>Like Rebel from nowadays might have beaten diep at the wmcc (congratulations
>Ed), because of a good bookline played by Rebel and after that rebel
>kept on playing good moves without hesitation.
>
>However if i would run my current program at a dual 1.2Ghz AMD and
>play it against rebel8 at a 200MMX, with a rebel8 openingsbook,
>then i of course completely annihilate rebel8.
>
>Idem against Nimzo98 even.
>
>In fact i recently got back a small match diep - nimzo98.
>
>Now that's a pretty fair match, because diep doesn't have learning.
>With learning every person in this world knows that it wouldn't be
>a fair match as you keep repeating victories then...
>
>Diep won *everything*.
>
>Now diep isn't even wmcc world champ, so it still makes some mistakes now
>and then.
>
>Especially its book is not at the current level, but compared to a
>few years ago it's a complete walkover as todays mistakes are not
>near the mistake level of a few years ago.
>
>Your comparision of crafty versus cray blitz from a few years ago
>is completely not valid. Crafty 7 ply versus what was it cray blitz
>10 ply or something?

It was crafty of _this_ year, on my quad, vs Cray Blitz.  Crafty was
out-searching it by 2-3 plies due to null-move.  But it didn't do very
well in game score, going something like 3 wins to 7 losses or something
similar.





>
>Take a program doing checks in qsearch like DIEP, or take junior wmcc2001
>(way better than junior7 seemingly as it won games and junior7 wins
>hardly anything).
>
>I remember first crafty versions with very little king safety.
>
>OF COURSE THAT WAS A WALKOVER FOR A DEEPER SEARCHING PROGRAM.
>
>However compare that with a todays program searching 12 ply with hardly
>forward pruning and a way better evaluation!
>
>That's complete suicide then for the deep searching cray.

That supposes you can smash crafty, because Cray Blitz certainly did...



>
>The crays/DB patzermoves now will all be punished at the moment they get made,
>whereas in the past things like deep blue could walk away with the
>patzermoves because the opponents ignored them and just allowed the
>patzer moves getting a real and unavoidable threat which decided the game!
>
>Best regards,
>Vincent



This page took 0.01 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.