Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:13:43 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 06:03:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 14, 2002 at 04:19:46, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: > >>On October 14, 2002 at 04:04:30, Ingo Althofer wrote: >> >>>In the log-files of the ICC hour with Feng Hsiung Hsu >>>the following passages can be found: >>> >>>> EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: I heard that Fritz did >>>> play a match against Deep Blue in Hong Kong >>>> 1995,according to one of the Fritz programmers, >>>> is this not true? >>>> CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: >>>> false advertisement. deep blue does not exist >>>> until 1996. the new chip was not completed >>>> until january 1996... >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from oddg: Back to >>>> the WC 1995, There was an entry with the name >>>> Deep Blue (Fritz won against DB), did it not have >>>> any relations to your Deep Blue? (EeEk: any idea >>>> how Deep Blue's name got in there, is this >>>> completely false?) >>>> CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: deep blue did not play in >>>> 1995, since it did not exist yet. >>>> it was just deliberate relabeling on the part of >>>> commercial vendors, for obvious reasons. >>> >> >>You cliped a bit to early, here are the rest of his answer: > >But he said it wasn't deep blue. that's nonsense it was deep blue. >whether it was the old dtii is logical. every year you >have new versions of your thing of course. 95,96,97 each year new >chips. but it WAS called deep blue. calling it something else now >is not nice. If it had won, it would be said different: "deep blue >dominated always and also against kasparov". That the level of the >games played by computers in 1995-1997 was still very low, the audience >has forgotten of course. > >Relevant is that it was called deep blue. Not deep shit. > >>" >>CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the program played was deep thought ii. which >>was vastly inferior to deep blue in chess knowledge as well search >>speed (1000 to 1 ratio in effective speed, 100 to 1 in raw speed) >>CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: and we were as unlucky as kramnik is today:). >>" > >the speed projections are not interesting. The number of nodes is not >the important factor here basically. There is so many things where you >lose to that the number of nodes a second is irrelevant. > >Relevant is that the 1997 version got 12.2 ply on average. This was >WITH no progress pruning and WITH very dubious pruning last plies >(which however tactically doesn't miss something soon). I do not believe that Deep blue did pruning in the first plies. I know that they were afraid of pruning and it means that if they searched 12 plies forward they did no pruning in the first 12 plies. I believe that pruning later on the tree was done but you can look it as lack of extension in some branches and not as pruning. > >So it was seeing a lot less than DIEP is doing at 12 ply, with exception >of a few tactical jokes. Your definition of a joke: "Everything that deep blue could see at 12 plies and Diep cannot see at 12 plies." > >Diep doesn't forward prune positional moves at all. It's >only nullmoving. > >Extensions are positional irrelevant. Sometimes they help to avoid losing >tactical lines. But at these depths even Hsu says he feels it doesn't matter. > >I agree with him there. I do not agree. Extensions could help to see Kh1 in game 2 but deeper blue did not use the right extensions to see it. > >You can definitely write down a statement from me that i am amazed they >forward pruned last few plies. > >Of course that explains why they got 12.2 ply and in experiments i never >came above 10 ply much. You never came above 10 plies because you did not do the things that they did. We do not know exactly what they did and I believe that your assumption about what they did is wrong. You probably assume that they extended lines like 1.e4 h5 Qxh5 Rxh5 because of the singular extensions(I do not believe in it) Uri
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.