Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:44:05 11/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 1998 at 22:23:04, Howard Exner wrote: >On November 22, 1998 at 11:22:30, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On November 22, 1998 at 10:52:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>> > >>>Another good one, although I can't tell you where the thing starts, is the >>>game *socrates vs Deep Blue Prototype at Cape May new jersey, 1994. The >>>critical point starts with both programs castling on the queenside if I >>>recall, and DB prototype initiating a pawn advance on that side. If someone >>>has the game, or can find it, I might be able to find where the fireworks >>>started, or I'll ask Hsu as he probably remembers. But this was another of >>>those very deep combinations.. At the point where it happened *none* of us >>>(including an IM and a bunch of good chess players) understood it until about >>>20 plies had unfolded and suddenly Mike Valvo says "oho! look here, at the >>>end of this, *this* happens and this is crushing for black"... >>> >>>As I recall, this was more obvious once the punch line was found because it >>>was a long sequence that was pretty forced by both sides, once it was started... >>> >>>anybody have the last ACM games? >> >> >>[Event "24th ACM Computer Chess Championship"] >>[Site "Cape May, NJ USA"] >>[Date "1994.06.26"] >>[Round "4"] >>[White "Star Socrates"] >>[Black "Deep Thought II"] >>[Result "0-1"] >> >>1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nge2 Nf6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. >>O-O-O h6 9. Bf4 Bd7 10. Nxc6 Bxc6 11. f3 d5 12. Qe1 Bb4 13. a3 Ba5 14. Bd2 O-O >>15. exd5 exd5 16. Bd3 Re8 17. Qh4 d4 18. Na2 Bxd2+ 19. Rxd2 a5 20. Bc4 b5 21. >>Rxd4 Qe7 22. Bf1 Qe3+ 23. Rd2 b4 24. Qd4 bxa3 25. Qxe3 axb2+ 26. Kxb2 Rxe3 27. >>Rd6 Rb8+ 28. Kc1 Ra3 29. Rxc6 Rxa2 30. g3 Ra1+ 31. Kd2 a4 32. Bg2 Rd8+ 33. Ke2 >>Rxh1 34. Bxh1 Ra8 35. Rb6 Nd5 36. Rd6 Nc3+ 37. Kd3 a3 38. Kxc3 a2 39. Rd1 a1=Q+ >>40. Rxa1 Rxa1 41. Bg2 Rg1 42. Bh3 Rh1 43. Bc8 Rxh2 44. g4 Rf2 45. Bb7 g6 46. >>Kd3 h5 47. gxh5 gxh5 48. Be4 h4 49. Ke3 Rg2 50. Bf5 Rg5 51. Bh3 Rg3 52. Bf1 h3 >>53. Kf2 h2 54. Bg2 Rg7 55. f4 f5 56. Kf3 Kf7 57. Kf2 Rg4 58. Kf3 Ke7 59. Kf2 >>Rg8 60. Kf1 Kd6 61. Kf2 0-1 > >Aren't other programs of today playing the same winning moves as Deep Thought >here? Starting with 22. ... Qe3+ and ending with 31. ... a4(Rd8+ looks like >a direct transposing of moves would be considered as good if followed by the >a4 advance). > >Or is the point that Deep Thought ran these lines deeper, which I don't >doubt that it did. the point here is that deep thought had a +2 (or so) score vs *socrates for about 10 moves *before* *socrates saw they were losing. At the point where this started, DT said +2, *socrates said "about even" and the discussion was on king safety. Everyone was "assuming" that DT depended on piece/square tables, which it did to a point, that reflected lots of material on the board. But following it's PV showed that pieces were coming off right and left, but the last part of the PV wasn't visible due to the hardware search on the end, and (I suppose) some hash table stuff making recovering the PV difficult (I saw this in my mtd(f) experiments for example). But each move, * socrates said "even" and deep thought said +2, until about 10 moves later when *socrates started saying "not to even", "significantly worse than even" and finally -2 and the game was busted wide open... It is certainly possible that the programs of today might play the same moves. But would they see they were winning? Hardly. IE several programs would play the c5 in the dt/CB game... but have no idea at all that they are winning the game... and varying anywhere along the way might miss the "win" totally... I've asked Hsu if he remembers exactly where this started. No answer yet, but he had previously said he'd be "doing something" for a few days, which might involve a trip home over the Thanksgiving holidays or something... once we get info on where this started, we can begin to analyze to see what it would take to see what they saw... > >I still think that the best demonstration of the project's strength >are games 2-5 of the second match with Kasparov. I'm still guessing >that these games really wore Kasparov down. These were great games >and games 3, 4 and 5 showed how extremely difficult it was >for the best chess player on the planet to convert his advantages in these games >to wins.
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.