Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:51:13 11/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1998 at 09:20:28, blass uri wrote: > >On November 09, 1998 at 09:05:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 09, 1998 at 00:15:39, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On November 08, 1998 at 21:23:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 08, 1998 at 17:08:12, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 07, 1998 at 17:04:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I don't believe so, no. Based on 10+ years of experience in watching older >>>>>>and slower versions of deep thought absolutely shred micro programs, and >>>>>>factoring in the 100-fold improvement (at least) in the speed of DB over >>>>>>the older Deep Thought, I'd think that there might not be a better commercial >>>>>>program for even longer if my suspicion that doubling in speed every 18 months >>>>>>turns out to be true.. I don't see how it can continue... and without that >>>>>>performance boost, micros vs db would be totally hopeless... >>>>> >>>>>Bob, >>>>> >>>>>Those 10+ years ended in 1993 or so, the last time that Deep Thought played and >>>>>won against a micro. As you well know, post-1993 versions of Deep Blue played >>>>>very few games against micros and won none of them. >>>> >>>> >>>>Don't know about you, but in 1994, I was in Cape May New Jersay, and watched >>>>the same old deep thought hardware blow everyone off the board. Micros >>>>included... >>>> >>>>and I certainly don't understand your last phrase "played very few and won none" >>>>so I assume you can give some data. I would invert that a bit... it played >>>>very few but won *all*... the only exception was the game vs Fritz in Hong >>>>Kong... >>>> >>>>> >>>>>In 1993 the top micros were rated about 2300 (according to SSDF, the top four >>>>>are rated 2322, 2302, 2292, 2288), so dominating them doesn't prove superiority >>>>>over today's top programs. What's more, if yout play over old DT/DB games, it >>>>>seems to get into serious trouble in every other game it plays, but gets away >>>>>with it. There was a game it played as white against Zarkov in ACM (1992, I >>>>>think), which it made every attempt to lose, but Zarkov apparently didn't want >>>>>to win. Playing over this game, you realize it is lost not only against the top >>>>>programs of today, but even against the middle of the pack. I also wonder how >>>>>many of today's top programs would fail to exploit DB-Prototype's bad opening >>>>>against Star Socrates. >>>> >>>>Fine... DT didn't play great. But it blew everyone out tactically. But what >>>>does that have to do with "deep blue"? based on hardware two generations newer >>>>than the 1992 Deep Thought that was still unbeatable? And let me remind you >>>>once again... final game of kasparov vs deep blue... two commercial programs >>>>were given that position playing white, against an IM, and both lost badly... >>> >>>I do not think that the opening that kasparov played was the problem but the >>>fact that kasparov was not ready to play it. >>>I am not sure if deep blue can win against the same IM or against top program >>>with white. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I wouldn't argue at all although after Nxe6 (the position where the games with >>the IM started) black has problems... but so does white as he is a piece down >>and has to prove Ne6 is sound... >> >>But that really isn't the point in this game discussion. The point that always >>comes up is "Kasparov blew the order of two consecutive moves and allowed Nxe6 >>which resulted in an 'easy win' for white." I still say that this is *not* an >>easy win, and used the commercial vs IM games someone posted on r.g.c.c early >>this year as evidence that white doesn't have an easy 1-0 time of it... >> >>The point was that game 6 wasn't over after Nxe6 IMHO. The game stillhas to >>be won... and most (if not all) programs would still not have won playing >>Kasparov or even against a strong IM... > >I think that most program will lose with white even if they play against >themselves. > >I did an experiment with Genius3 and after Nxe6 fxe6 black won (I gave white 30 >minutes per move and black 3 minutes per move). > >The mistake of kasparov was that he was not ready to the sacrifice and >I think that he played in this game after he was surprised even worse than a >prepared IM. > >Uri Most seem to think that after Nxe6 black is lost... Karpov included. But it is not easy to prove this as white... However, in this position, DB was *way* positive on the first move out of book, even though it was a pawn down, because it's singular extensions had found *the* deep forcing line that makes it work, apparently. Every program I saw try this thought white was losing when they came out of book...
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.