Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 00:02:45 11/24/98
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). I think that a lot of what has been posted about DT/DB has been anecdotal and not always accurate, and Bob has tried to construct arguments out of almost nothing, which is in contrast to others who don't necessarily even have the "almost". I think this is a sorry situation and I wish Hsu and Campbell had been active in this group all along, although I can't say that I'd wish the consequences of this on them. I don't think we have any way of figuring out what happened in that old position. Bob says they had +2 at the root. If they did, this seems to be pretty spectacular. From what I know about their search, the only thing that distinguishes their search aggressive use of singular extension. I don't think you can look at that position and eyeball it and say that there's nothing in there that singular extension can do. Other side's also true of course, but it's at least one more thing to investigate. >>>> 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 ? Right, I predicted this when I started the original thread. If we can't find anything other than Qb6, and I fully expect that we won't find anything other than Qb6, then I'm not sure we can say anything. It's not like if we find it they didn't cheat and if we don't find it they did. I think if we find it, it's pretty strong evidence that they didn't cheat, since it's findable. I think that if there is a big score drop, it's evidence we can argue about then. But if we don't find it, it doesn't prove anything, of course. I think this is obvious. >>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 I think it is much more likely that DB found this pseudo-shot, than it is that someone was prepared to cheat, accurately identified this as a good place to do it, and was either able to do this with impunity because everyone else in the area was also morally bankrupt, or was able to avoid detection by people who you would presume were less impaired ethically. bruce
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.