Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:25:48 08/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2001 at 16:30:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: the only one that beated kasparov is kasparov himself. You know that and i know that, and even the last match he again seemed to get away with his FM/IM level of play. Suppose kasparov would have won that last game playing a najdorf with black. How would deep blue look like then? >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.