Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:37:06 09/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2001 at 10:48:42, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 06, 2001 at 10:00:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 06, 2001 at 08:22:23, K. Burcham wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>amazing game. i always look for moves that you played for the computer, >>> to get the results you want. >>> >>>in this game, deep fritz chooses all the program moves that you list here. >>> >>>in your games that you sacrifice material for position, and your "every move >>> advance toward king" methods, this makes your games look very easy for >>> a human. and this makes these games look like you are playing an >>> easy opponent. >>> >>>it seems that if these (all) programs are this vunerable to kingside >>> attacks, then it would also seem that huebner (spelling?) could >>> have used these methods in his comp games. and it would also seem >>> that kramnik could use these methods in his upcoming match. >>> >>>and if kasparov is so good, and the king, and he used a comp for studies, >>> then why didnt he use these methods with deep? are you going to >>> say that deep would not choose these moves. are you going to >>> say that deep would not fall for ...h5, and would develop >>> its own attack. >> >> >>Deep Blue is a different animal from Deep Fritz. First, it was at least >>a hundred times faster. Which plugs several holes. Second, its evaluation >>was developed and tuned while playing against human GMs, not against other >>computers. That plugs several more holes. > >We do not know if it was a different animal because kasparov did not try h5 and >he had the opportunity to try in game 2. OK. I will re-phrase that. _I_ know that deep blue is a completely different animal from deep fritz. 100X faster. Better tuned against GM players. No null-move. Singular extensions. The differences are almost too many to mention. > >I also doubt if GM's tried the idea of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 h5 >against deeper blue. > >I doubt if tuning the evaluation based on games against humans could help >because there is a lot of things that humans did not try. You only need reasonable king safety. With that, 4... h5 is simply going to get busted on principle. > >I also found that Deep Fritz could avoid the drawing mistake of Deeper blue in >game 2 and the same for Junior and Tiger so claims that the evaluation of Deeper >blue was different do not convince me. Evaluation has _nothing_ to do with detecting a draw. Deep Fritz does _not_ see the problem with the draw in game 2. It simply plays a different king move for more or less random reasons. That is a far cry from _seeing_ the problem, which it can not do. > >The fact that the evaluation of Deeper blue was different does not say that it >was better and it is possible that it even could fall for king attack that Deep >Fritz does not fall into if you play the relevant lines that kasparov did not >know. > >We have no idea if kasparov could win Deeper blue in game 2 by h5 for the simple >reason that kasparov did not try and everything is going to be a speculation. > >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.