Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:56:42 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 07:12:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 21:48:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > > - no checks in qsearch > - forward pruning last ply which also hurted nullmove incredible Don't know what you mean there. If you are talking about razoring, it was a 25% gain roughly but it was removed many years ago... > - no mating extensions (not solving win at chess 141 even soon which > in 1997 was a 9 ply trick for me). Crafty has been solving wac141 for a long time. The null-move mate threat speeded it up a ply, maybe... But that is not the point... You said "nobody got to 11-12 plies". I got to 11-12 plies. Your statement is therefore simply false because of that. You didn't qualify the "nobody to exclude those that can't solve wac 141 fast enough for you or whatever." > >Fritz3 also got 11 ply but it was also with a lot of dubiousy. > >In fact some hit 15 ply as well with major forward pruning back then. > >But that is not a fair compare. We must compare programs that searched >in the same way Bob. So not forward pruning, at most nullmove. and >strong in the leaves. > >Crafty even today is very weak there. Where does that leave _your_ program then??? > >> >> >> >> >>>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.