Author: Amir Ban
Date: 14:42:39 11/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 1998 at 12:59:36, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On November 23, 1998 at 11:50:01, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On November 23, 1998 at 09:37:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>To say that today's top program are not only unable to discover the c5 line, but >>even to find that any move within this line is singular is beyond their >>capabilities, is one of the greatest exaggerations yet seen on this newsgroup. > >Maybe Bob isn't remembering this right, but he seems pretty sure so I'm >listening. He says they had +2 there. +2 is a lot to have there, and I think >it's pretty unlikely that Bob is mis-remembering. So I think it's at least >likely that DT found something there. I can't find anything there, can you? So >maybe this is a case where their search worked. > I didn't doubt Bob's recollections at all, and I still don't. Before this thread started, I also didn't doubt his conclusion that this is a very deep material-winning combination that DT saw ages before CB on the strength of its SE ability, but now I do. Uri tried to find the singular moves in the line, that should be there in order for SE to be successful, and reported that he couldn't. I looked at it, and I doubt that there is any combination, because I see that 9 plies after the key move, the supposed victim has still not lost anything, and can make simple moves that keep it this way. I'm not claiming perfect knowledge here, and I don't mind being shown where I'm wrong. I don't know why DT said +2. You tell me. Maybe I didn't make the title clear enough. I think the following sort of conversation took place between a mythological B and a legendary U: B: Look at the magnificent new clothes the king is wearing. U: Huh ? Where ? B: The world has never seen anything like it ! U: Sorry, I don't see anything. B: What, have you any idea how much the king paid for this wonderful suit ? U: No. B: I was there during the fitting ! So you are an expert in clothing are you ? U: It's just that the king has nothing on. B: (Sarcastically) Shall I send to your mailbox all the plans and paperwork that went into this ? Bring a truck to your mailbox. Better yet, a train. U: Just look there, on the left buttock there's ... B: Now see here, are you calling me a liar ? Of course we know the truth: that the king's new clothes are there, but can be seen only by wise people (and by those that don't hate Big Iron). >>> We've already >>>seen that in the Deep Blue vs Kasparov game two, Dark Thought and Ferret have >>>searched axb5/Qb6 to depth 20 or 21 without seeing anything to cause it to fail >>>low, yet we know deep blue did. At 1/2 that depth. So it might take a program >>>like junior *fifty* plies to find what is going on there for all I know at >>>present. And if I could somehow give you a PV to get you down to the point >>>where Junior sees this, it would be so deep, probably, that it would be easy >>>to say "but this isn't the best move, white or black should try this instead. >>>And we end right back up at square zero. >>> >> >>Quite an exaggeration, don't you think ? So we can calculate for many centuries >>and not find it ? Why didn't you say so before we already wasted about a week on >>this ? >> >>But besides, this is a switch you are pulling here: We put all the computers on >>this position to vindicate DB's axb5. Now it's become a tautology that it's best >>? > >It may not be any better than Qb6. In order to DB to find it, it had to think >that it was better, for just one ply. > >If someone finds axb5, that is a pretty convincing argument that it is possible >to find it. > >If someone gets a big score drop on Qb6, well, this at least shows that a >program can understand Qb6 to some degree. > I agree with all this, but what conclusion do you propose if no program does that ? >Seirawan says in the ICCAJ that "It is intriguing to understand how DEEP BLUE >could reject a line that wins two Pawns by force." I think that we're all >capable of seeing that it only wins one pawn, but I'm hoping that we can find >that it wins zero pawns. > I'm with Seirawan. Amir
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.