Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:26:48 11/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 1998 at 17:42:39, Amir Ban wrote: >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 How so when he is demonstrably wrong here? IE no two pawns to be one by any analysis I've seen from computers looking at this... I think Yasser was too cursory in his analysis there...
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.