Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:39:37 09/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2001 at 11:38:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 06, 2001 at 11:27:58, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>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. >>> >>>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. >>> >>>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. >>> >>>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 >>I like uri's thinking, usually makes sense to me. It get's a little bit on my >>nerve's the praise Bob keep's piling on DB and his comparisons against modern >>lil micro com programs always speed given as reason.... i"m not convinced Bob. I >>think the Tiger's, Fritz's etall are a heck of a lot better than you give them >>credit for, and yes even Crafty. No disrespect intended. >> >>Wayne > > >When we see them play _evenly_ with Kasparov, I will agree. Right now, they >are having one hell of a time trying to play evenly with Nemeth. Much less >Kasparov. By the way, I didn't "pile praise on DB". I said (a) they are 100x faster. That is not praise, that is fact. I said (b) they tuned in a different way, using GM opponents rather than autoplaying against other programs in an effort to top the SSDF list. Neither of those are "praise" but are "fact"...
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.