Author: Mark Young
Date: 08:53:45 11/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 1998 at 09:44:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? The program's I tried all say they are winning at move 22 black. They showed around +1 or better in a very short time. The only program that would not play 22.. Qe3+ was Junior 5. It perfered b4 but still showed +1. 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.