Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:48:08 08/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 21:15:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 15:08:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On August 18, 2002 at 09:06:02, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>> Kasparov proved that he can defeat programs at fast time controls when he >>>defeated Deep Thought in a game/90 two games match in 1989. This program was >>>weaker than Deep Junior is today, as it searched well over 2,000,000 NPS, but >>>didn't have as much chess knowledge as Deep Junior. He also defeated Deep Blue >>>in 1996. This program is obviously much faster than Deep Junior is today, but in >>>my opinion Deep Junior still has more chess knowledge than Deep Blue had back in >>>1996. >>> >>>PS: It is hard to compare Deep Blue of 1997 vs Deep Junior of today, but in my >>>opinion Deep Junior Chess Knowledge could make up for the difference of Deep >>>Blue super calculating power of 1997. >> >>How do you know all this? >> >>How do you know Deep Junior has more chess knowledge? >> >>I mean, we don't know what Deep Blue evaluated exactly (save a few things >>that are published). We know *nothing* about what Deep Junior evaluates >>exactly. > >yes we know that. Look at the paper it describes about 40 patterns and if >you multiply that with arrays of 64 (that's how it goes in hardware) >and add to it piece square tables it is exactly what theydid. of course how >well defined the patterns are is a different case. > >We can see that at the rude play very easily. Look at game 1 from 97, >where it played manoeuvres like qa5 bc7 qc5 which even seirawan comments >correctly in his 1997 analysis. Gnuchess accuracy it is. Very rude and >primitive, but for a program with a leaf evaluation (even though some >tuning by preprocessor took place) with several tens of patterns (and >as a result of that several thousands of adjustable parameters) that >means it was searching deeper than any program with that amount of >knowledge in evaluation in 1997. I for sure had more in 97 (though i >used arrays less back in 97 than i do now as i'm not hardware but >software and L2 caches were performing bad in general back then until >pentium pro which took a few years to adjust to) so had others, but we >all shared that at a 200Mhz pentiumpro we searched 8-9 ply, NOT 11-12. > I'm not going to comment on the rest of your nonsensical statements, but the above is clearly wrong and that is provable. I played in Jakarta on a pentium pro 200. And _My program_ searched 11-12 plies. I have the logs to prove it. And anyone that wants to download the crafty (jakarta) version can find the same thing... So if you are going to make statements, at _least_ verify that there is some basis of truth to them first. _you_ might not have been able to hit 11-12 plies on a P6/200, but I did... And others did as well. >So then 11-12 wins simply. 8-9 with evaluations from that period lost >simply. period. > >Evaluations 8-9 nowadays are a different case (extending way more nowadays >too than in 1997 too). The evaluation of DIEP is a top grandmaster relatively >seen when compared to 1997 where it knew shit from endgames for example. > >>As a consequence, you can't possibly support any of the claims or >>suggestions you make. > >Yes we can. The biggest evidence is the games played. Statistical evidence >on how programs play moves is the best. The major problem is that you need >to invest time if your chess level is not so high to see it and even a high >rated chessplayer who knows nothing from how chessprograms evaluate will >completely fail here (though Seirawan came pretty far but as he was paid >by IBM he described it in a positive way, leaving conclusions to the reader). > >We have seen some marvellous conclusions already by Uri here based upon >logfiles from the IBM computer. From evaluation viewpoint we >see for example from the mainlines that it gives a big bonus for a bishop >attacking its own queen. We also see it only cares for how many squares the >queen can go to, not caring for patterns there. Very basic things which >were at the time very normal in gnuchess type programs. > >We also see that it knows really nothing from good/bad bishops (not >surprising, only 1 program had in 97 this thing and it was mine). It >simply didn't care for the center at all. This is amazing nowadays >comercial programs *only* care for the center. > >Also its knowledge on passers was very primitif. We see for example that >it doesn't see difference even between covered passers and very good >blocked passers. Regrettably that didn't happen a lot on the board. > >The most amazing thing by far is its huge penalties and bonuses for a few >king safety things. that of course led to big patzer play which is nice >and nowadays very normal. These penalties/bonuses are in complete >contrast to pawn structure aroudn the king. In many games we see >major mistakes here. game 1, but if i remember well game 4 where >deep blue castles long and then plays horrible king moves and b4 b5. > >From the many king moves in the game and in the logfiles we see clearly that >it had a very primitif 'opponent pieces to my king' distance feature. > >I remember how DIEP back in 95,96 wanted also always ka1 because that would >mean the king is further away from the pieces. A very basic mistake we >still see in some engines. It is a non-preprocessor mistake obviously. > >but it doesn't take away that the pattern is a very primitive heuristic. > >nearly all kind of bad moves are explained by simple bugs in evaluation. >100% the exact bugs gnuchess also has. > >the comparision with gnuchess is not fair, but for evaluation it sure is. > >We see that the 'new gnuchess', sorry to call it like that, zarkovx, >is the program which when getting 10-11 ply is playing from all chess software >nearly exactly every move which deep blue also played. don't use the >dos-zarkov, but i mean the 4.5xx versions of zarkovx where John hardly >nullmoves the last few plies (they take some time to get 10-12 ply, >horrible branching factor). It makes the same weird moves, same mistakes, >same strong moves. It is a perfect match for how deep blue played. > >A person who can't play chess at all and whose program is exactly making >the mistakes a beginner makes when making a chess evaluation. > >Best regards, >Vincent > >>All of this talk about Deep Blue this and Deep Blue that is just pure >>bullshit. Maybe Fritz 7 would kick its ass. Maybe Fritz 7 would get >>its ass kicked. Maybe they're about as strong. I dont care either way >>since Deep Blue doesn't exist anymore and it certainly doesn't look as >>if it's ever going to play again. So why care about it? Why keep making >>totally unfounded speculations? What's the frigging point? This kind >>of discussion comes up about once in every 2 months and there has NEVER >>EVER come anything insightful out. Instead, a lot of people are making >>claims or saying things that they can never ever support, or even are >>demonstrably wrong. >> >>Mention the words 'Deep' and 'Blue' to anyone who works in computer >>chess, and all sanity suddently grinds to a halt. >> >>-- >>GCP
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.