Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:23:23 11/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 1998 at 11:53:45, Mark Young wrote: >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. > back up to move 17 and see what your programs say. at this point, before DT played d4 *socrates thought it was somewhat ahead. After d5 was played, DT was about 1 pawn different from what *Socrates saw... after move 20 (b5) was played DT was well over +1.... Other notes here say that at white's move 33, the game was over... The interesting position then may be after white's move 20. I don't get +1 here. although I haven't yet run for many minutes... However, in the words of Hsu, this was not as much about a single tactical shot as it was of outplaying the opponent. But the evals were so different it caused a lot of interest... more when I have some time... > >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.