Author: Joshua Lee
Date: 00:06:00 01/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2002 at 14:24:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 17, 2002 at 12:53:21, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>Deep Thought / Blue - Fritz / Quest [B33] >>WM Hong Kong (5), 1995 >> >>1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 >>9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Deep Thought / Blue - Fritz / Quest >>r2qkb1r/5p1p/p1npb3/1p1Np2Q/4Pp2/N2B4/PPP2PPP/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Fritz 7: >> >>13.c3 Bxd5 14.exd5 Ne7 15.0-0 Bg7 16.Be4 Qc7 >> ² (0.60) Depth: 7/21 00:00:00 104kN >>13.c3 Rg8 14.0-0 h6 15.Be2 b4 16.Nc4 bxc3 17.bxc3 >> ² (0.60) Depth: 8/26 00:00:00 211kN >>13.c3 Rg8 14.0-0 h6 15.h3 Bg7 16.Nc2 Ne7 17.Ncb4 Nxd5 >> ² (0.44) Depth: 9/28 00:00:02 578kN >>13.0-0! >> ² (0.47) Depth: 9/29 00:00:03 755kN >>13.0-0 h6 14.c3 Rg8 15.h3 Bg7 16.Nc2 Ne7 17.Ncb4 Nxd5 >> ² (0.44) Depth: 10/26 00:00:08 2103kN >>13.0-0 h6 14.c3 Rg8 15.h3 Bg7 16.Nc2 Ne7 17.Ncb4 Nxd5 18.exd5 Bd7 >> = (0.25) Depth: 11/29 00:00:19 4762kN >>13.c3! >> ² (0.29) Depth: 11/29 00:00:21 5463kN >>13.c3! h6 14.Qf3 Rg8 15.h3 Bg7 16.Nc2 Ne7 17.Ncb4 Nxd5 18.Nxd5 Bxd5 >> ² (0.32) Depth: 11/35 00:00:27 7064kN >>13.c3 Rg8 14.Rg1 h6 15.Qe2 Bg7 16.Nc2 Ne7 17.Ncb4 >> ² (0.35) Depth: 12/37 00:01:42 26515kN >>13.c3 Rg8 14.Rg1 h6 15.g3 b4 16.Nc4 bxc3 17.bxc3 Bg4 18.Qh4 Qxh4 19.gxh4 >> ² (0.38) Depth: 13/37 00:03:00 47260kN >>13.c3 Rg8 14.Rg1 h6 15.g3 Bxd5 16.exd5 Ne7 17.Nc2 Qd7 18.Qf3 Qh3 19.0-0-0 Bg7 >> ² (0.41) Depth: 14/40 00:06:26 102183kN >>13.c3 Rg8 14.Rg1 h6 15.g3 b4 16.Nc4 bxc3 17.bxc3 Na5 18.Qd1 Bxd5 19.exd5 >> ² (0.35) Depth: 15/44 00:13:51 223553kN >> >>(Lee, Navarre Beach Industries 17.01.2002) >> 12...f4 13.0-0 Rg8 14.Kh1 Rg6 15.Qd1 Deep Thought / Blue - Fritz / Quest >>2rqkb2/5p1p/p1npb1r1/1p1Np3/4Pp2/N2B4/PPP2PPP/R2Q1R1K w - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Fritz 7: >> >>16.c4 Bg7 17.cxb5 axb5 18.Nxb5 Kf8 19.Qf3 Bxd5 20.exd5 >> ± (1.10) Depth: 6/21 00:00:00 116kN >>16.c4-- >> ± (0.82) Depth: 7/24 00:00:00 211kN >>16.c4-- Qg5 17.g3 Ne7 18.cxb5 Nxd5 19.exd5 Bxd5+ 20.Kg1 >> ² (0.50) Depth: 7/27 00:00:01 267kN >>16.Nb1! >> ² (0.54) Depth: 7/27 00:00:01 325kN >>16.Nb1! >> ² (0.69) Depth: 7/27 00:00:01 334kN >>16.Nb1! Bg7 17.a4 Kf8 18.axb5 axb5 19.Bxb5 Nd4 >> ± (0.72) Depth: 7/27 00:00:01 358kN >>16.Nb1-- >> ² (0.44) Depth: 8/25 00:00:02 627kN >>16.Nb1-- >> ² (0.44) Depth: 8/26 00:00:03 843kN >>16.c4! >> ² (0.47) Depth: 8/30 00:00:04 1055kN >>16.c4! >> ² (0.63) Depth: 8/30 00:00:04 1091kN >>16.c4! Qg5 17.Rg1 bxc4 18.Bxc4 Qh4 19.Rf1 Qg5 20.Rg1 Qh4 21.Rf1 Qg5 22.Rg1 Qh4 >>23.Rf1 >> ± (0.72) Depth: 8/30 00:00:04 1151kN >>16.c4 Qg5 17.Rg1 Rh6 18.g4 Ne7 19.Rc1 Nxd5 20.exd5 >> ± (0.75) Depth: 9/30 00:00:08 2166kN >>16.c4-- >> ² (0.47) Depth: 10/33 00:00:21 5627kN >>16.c4-- Qh4 17.g3 Qh3 18.Rg1 Qxh2+ 19.Kxh2 Rh6+ 20.Qh5 Rxh5+ 21.Kg2 Bh3+ 22.Kh2 >> = (-0.25) Depth: 10/33 00:00:31 8283kN >>16.Rb1! >> = (-0.21) Depth: 10/33 00:00:33 8674kN >>16.Rb1! >> = (0.00) Depth: 10/33 00:00:33 8740kN >>16.Be2! >> = (-0.03) Depth: 10/33 00:00:42 11156kN >>16.Be2! >> = (0.13) Depth: 10/33 00:00:43 11433kN >>16.Be2! Qg5 17.Rg1 Rh6 18.g3 Ne7 19.g4 Nxd5 >> ² (0.29) Depth: 10/33 00:00:48 12757kN >>16.g3! >> ² (0.32) Depth: 10/33 00:01:15 19880kN >>16.g3! Bh6 17.c4 Ne7 18.gxf4 Bh3 19.Nxe7 Bg2+ 20.Kg1 Qxe7 21.f5 >> ² (0.35) Depth: 10/35 00:01:31 24104kN >>16.g3 Bh6 17.c4 bxc4 18.Nxc4 Ne7 19.Qa4+ Kf8 20.Nxe7 Qxe7 21.Qxa6 Bg4 >> = (0.19) Depth: 11/36 00:02:05 33490kN >>16.Nb1! >> = (0.22) Depth: 11/36 00:02:21 37721kN >>16.Nb1-- >> = (0.00) Depth: 12/36 00:03:25 54572kN >>16.Nb1-- Qh4 17.Nd2 Nd4 18.Nf3 Nxf3 19.Qxf3 Bg4 20.Bxb5+ axb5 21.Qd3 f3 >> µ (-0.96) Depth: 12/38 00:04:29 71106kN >>16.g3! >> µ (-0.93) Depth: 12/38 00:04:32 71990kN >>16.g3! >> µ (-0.78) Depth: 12/38 00:04:34 72492kN >>16.g3! >> ³ (-0.46) Depth: 12/38 00:04:36 73190kN >>16.g3! >> = (0.16) Depth: 12/38 00:05:05 80848kN >>16.g3! Bh6 17.Nb1 Kf8 18.a4 Qg5 19.h4 Qg4 20.Qxg4 Bxg4 21.axb5 axb5 >> ² (0.29) Depth: 12/42 00:06:38 106094kN >>16.g3 Bg7 17.Nb1 Kf8 18.a4 Qg5 19.axb5 axb5 20.Bxb5 Nd4 21.Bd3 Rh6 >> = (0.16) Depth: 13/42 00:14:13 229838kN >>16.g3 Bg7 17.Rg1 Kf8 18.c3 Ne7 19.Nxe7 Qxe7 20.gxf4 exf4 21.Qh5 b4 22.Nb1 Rh6 >> = (0.10) Depth: 14/41 00:29:33 480206kN >>16.g3 Bh6 17.c3 Kf8 18.Nc2 Na5 19.Ncb4 Nc4 20.Bxc4 Rxc4 21.Qd3 >> = (0.04) Depth: 15/46 03:18:02 3251767kN >>16.g3 Qg5 17.c4 Nd4 18.cxb5 Bg4 19.h4 Qh5 20.Qa4 Bd7 >> = (0.00) Depth: 16/47 05:16:54 5215083kN >> >>(Lee, Navarre Beach Industries 17.01.2002) >> 15...Rc8 16.c4 Qh4 17.g3 Qh3 18.Qd2 f3 19.Rg1 Rh6 20.Qxh6 Qxh6 21.cxb5 Bxd5 >>22.exd5 Nb4 23.Bf5 Rc5 24.bxa6 Nxa6 25.Nc2 Qd2 26.Ne1 Rxd5 27.Nxf3 Qxf2 28.Be4 >>Ra5 29.Rg2 Qe3 30.Re1 Qh6 31.Bc6+ Kd8 32.a3 f5 33.Rc2 Rc5 34.Rxc5 Nxc5 35.Rf1 >>Be7 36.a4 f4 37.gxf4 Qxf4 38.Rg1 Nxa4 39.b4 Qxb4 0-1 >> >> >>The only negative thing i can say is if Deep Blue/Thought have more Knowledge >>than is in Commercial Programs why were the correct moves played then? >>Also if Fritz 7 really picked these will it change it's mind later and when will >>the Fritz search in Ply depth be equal to DB/DT if it isn't already? >>Not that this game is an end all say all , it is only one example and i am not >>100% convinced Fritz or any other program is better but from now on i will only >>look at 1996/1997 match games as the one above is NOT officially Deep Blue and >>that incarnation did not have some of the features that Deep Blue Definately >>had. > > >Two notes about the game. > >#1. This was deep thought hardware. perhaps 2M nodes per second or so >at best. > >#2. they had a definite problem during the game. They had found the right >move, but when fritz played their predicted move they had a communication >failure and had to reconnect and re-start the chess machine. It moved too >quickly as a result, because all the "pondering" information was lost. > >Every event has a bit of luck involved. Sometimes good. Sometimes bad... This is mentioned in the Monty Newborn book Kasparov Versus Deep Blue but there is no mention of the problem existing on move 16. It is impossible to even guess How Deep Thought or DB would do against any Top program based on one game this i realize then so is there a game which you think better to look at for a good example of the Deep's definately being better than commercials? I had meant to ask you a few questions reguarding the Deep's In your opinion what did they do better than current software and Reguarding a Performance list of Computers. This list shows the performance Ratings of Deep Blue/Thought, the ratings are low but the game number is high compared with commercial software Chess Tiger having 2788 against an average FIDE elo of 2497. Doesn't it make sense that this is just too high and with the same number of games as for instance Deep Thought of 1989 (29 games) that this rating would come down? There is a problem with Chris Carson's list Fast games are included for deep thought which most likely messes up the ratings. Since DB and Deep Thought Searched differently if not better and their Search to a Depth of 10 would be different from Crafty , Hiarcs , or Fritz how can one know that just because i let these programs search the same number of nodes that the results would show beyond doubt that one is better than the other? Do i need to look twice as deep what are the guidelines? I can say that Commercial's are 100% better if they could find the Bishop Sac that Kasparov Could've played then i can say well if the two were playing the Commercial software would win ...and that's about the only decent example i have but that sac turns out to be harder than most Nolot Positions due to the Depth needed. Do you think Computers are IM or GM strength? I remember you placing then at around 2450 or so within the past few years maybe i am quoting you wrong I could babble on but then i don't want to annoy. Thankyou
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.