Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:37:05 09/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2001 at 06:36:20, Slater Wold wrote: >I apologize. This is another one of those senseless posts, that will more than >likely do _NO_ good, and only resurect the timeless arguement over Deep Blue and >todays SW & HW. I myself _HATE_ to be the one to do this, but Uri has asked me >to prove my point, and by God, I have a point. > >Here it goes: > >Uri's arguement (as well as Vince, Amir, and a few others): On todays HW, many >commericial (and non-commercial) engines can spot, and play, the same exact >moves made by Deeper Blue. Therefore, had Kasprarov been playing Deep Fritz 7 >on a 8x900mhz machine, he would have lost in the same fashion. > >Here's the shocker: I AGREE! > >So why the hell do I think that Deeper Blue is stronger than say, the Deep Fritz >8x900mhz combo that will be playing Kramnik in a few months? > >Simple: Look at the games. Look for novelties. Look for outstanding >sacrifices, or brilliant moves. You will not find anything that even resembles >Super Grandmaster play. > >It is no secret that Kasparov did not play like himself in 99% of the 6 played >games. Kasparov made himself easy prey for Deeper Blue, and I agree, had the >_exact_ same circumstances happened with DF7, the same _exact_ result would have >came. > >So what's my point: Let me give you a clip from Anand, stating his opinon on >the match and Deeper Blue, > >"Unfortunately, as a result, we were never able to see the fabulous calculating >abilities of Deep Blue. Not once did we see a spectacular example of brute force >producing a solution that differed significantly from that suggested by >intuition. A lot has been made of Deep Blue's play in the second game, but in >fact only one or two moments can be singled out - 26.f4 and 37.Be4. The rest of >the game is not that difficult, even for a computer." > >What he is saying, is that the chess playing champion of the world, did not even >challenge Deeper Blue enough, for it to come up with a result that would boggle >the mind (or DF7 in this case). A computer program need not be rated 2700 ELO >to beat a 900 ELO human. It simply had to play smart, straight-forward chess in >order to win, and that's exactly what it did. > >Case & Point: Deeper Blue did not have to play spectacular moves in order to >win. It could have been searching 2M nodes per second, and the result _may_ >have been the same. Hell, perhaps he could have been playing the same Deep Blue >he defeated just a few years back, and the result could have been the same. > >Study: Perhaps we are going about this _ALL_ wrong. Instead of comparing moves >played by Deeper Blue, in an effort to defeat Kasparov, perhaps we should be >comparing moves made by Deep Blue I, in it's loss to Kasparov. Kasparov is >human, and is subject to emotions, trouble, health, ailments, and several other >things that no computer has to deal with. However, let's all remember that >these "chess playing machines" were developed 7 and 4 years ago, respectivly. >In other words, endgame moves made by Deep Blue I might be way off by what is >made today. Technology HAS improved in that, Deep Blue I did not have >tablebases. Also, in the _ONE_ game that Deeper Blue did lose, can you prove to >me that the engines of today might have made a better move? Can the chess >engines of today, find the mistakes made in this single game? > >Proof: Anand himself said that the games were not spectacular. And that >perhaps, it did not take all this technology to defeat Kasparov in this >particular match. He did say that in game 2, there were two moves that did show >that Deeper Blue had great "calculating abilities." 26. f4 and 38. Be4 were the >moves. Let's look at these, compared to todays engines. Keep in mind, Anand >states they were correct, and that's all we have to go on. I tend to believe more top programs at long time control than to believe humans unless they used a lot of time to analyze with computers. I believe that anand like most humans did not use a lot of time to analyze these positions with computers so the only convincing argument from my point of view is if Fritz can find one of these moves after a long time. If top programs cannot find it even after a long time and you cannot give me a tree to prove that the moves are better than Deep Fritz's moves then you are not going to convince me. 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.