Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 12:03:27 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 10:50:57, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On May 08, 2004 at 07:18:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>> >>>>>You are absulutely right. >>>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>>>correct. >>>>> >>>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>>>> >>>>>:_( >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>>>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>>>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>>>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>>>and dispose of you. >>> >>>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? >>> >>>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >>>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >>>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. >>> >>>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >>>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. >>> >>>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >>>questionmark moves from Junior! >>> >>>-S. >> >>I never thought this day would come - but I agree with Uri here. :-) >> >>Sports aren't about beautiful play. Sports are about winning. If someone is >>playing ugly, and winning, then it's your sense of aesthetics which needs to be >>reviewed. >> >>Computers have a long history of winning ugly. In the recent Fritz-Kasparov and >>Junior-Kasparov matches, the machines made many many more "mistakes" (according >>to human opinion) than Kasparov. But - if these mistakes aren't punished - are >>they really mistakes? Is it a mistake to leave Shaq wide open for three point >>shots? (Or send him to the line for "free" throws?) It's impossible to speak >>about objectivity here. You can only look at the results. >> >>Vas > >Let's take a look at some of the moves the annotator didn't like: > >[D]r2q1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2pbpn2/3p3b/8/1P1PPNPP/PBPN1PB1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 10 > >Zappa plays the obvious 10 ...e5. Deep Blue played 10 ...h6. I won't call this >a bad move, but it's clearly a pass move. > >1... e6-e5 2. e3-e4 Rf8-e8 3. Rf1-e1 Ra8-c8 4. a2-a4 h7-h6 5. Bb2-c3 Qd8-c7 6. >a4-a5 Bd6-c5 7. Qd1-b1 > = (0.25) Depth: 12/34 00:01:09.00 41299kN Rybka: info depth 11 time 46390 score cp 6 lowerbound nodes 13952923 nps 300774 pv a5c7 e3e4 e6e5 f3h4 a8e8 g3g4 h5g6 h4g6 f7g6 a1d1 d6c5 After 11. .. h6 info depth 11 time 37310 score cp 12 lowerbound nodes 10851884 nps 290857 pv f3h4 a5c5 g3g4 h5g6 h4g6 f7g6 a1c1 a8e8 b3b4 c5d6 b2d4 > >[D]r4rk1/pp1n1pp1/2pbpn1p/q2p3b/8/PP1PPNPP/1BPN1PB1/R3QRK1 b - - 0 12 > >Once again Zappa wants e5. Deep Blue played Bc7, which is a pass move at best, >and I would think the bishop is actually better on D6. > >1... e6-e5 2. c2-c4 Qa5-a6 3. d3-d4 e5-e4 4. Nf3-h4 Ra8-e8 5. Nh4-f5 Bd6-c7 6. >Ra1-c1 Nd7-b6 7. c4xd5 Nb6xd5 > = (0.24) Depth: 11/32 00:00:49.38 30722kN > Rybka: info depth 11 time 44420 score cp 6 lowerbound nodes 13688921 nps 308170 pv a5c7 e3e4 e6e5 f3h4 a8e8 g3g4 h5g6 h4g6 f7g6 e1e2 d6e7 after .. Bc7 info depth 10 time 12180 score cp 0 lowerbound nodes 3819169 nps 313560 pv f3h4 a5c5 g3g4 h5g6 h4g6 f7g6 a1c1 c7e5 b3b4 a8b8 >[D]r4rk1/ppbn1pp1/2p1pn1p/q2p3b/7N/PP1PP1PP/1BPN1PB1/R3QRK1 b - - 0 13 > >And Zappa is still dying for e5 :) Deep Blue played g5?, which cannot be >considered anything but a blunder. > >1... e6-e5 2. c2-c4 Ra8-d8 3. c4xd5 Nf6xd5 4. d3-d4 f7-f5 5. Nh4xf5 Rf8xf5 6. >e3-e4 Rf5-g5 7. e4xd5 c6xd5 > = (0.26) Depth: 11/32 00:00:42.90 26529kN > Rybka: info depth 12 time 55000 score cp -6 lowerbound nodes 18098913 nps 329071 pv a5c5 g3g4 g7g5 g4h5 g5h4 e1d1 c5d6 b2f6 d7f6 c2c4 a1a1 c4d5 f6d5 g2d5 d6d5 After .. g5 info depth 13 time 269620 score cp 25 lowerbound nodes 78230609 nps 290151 pv h4f3 a8e8 c2c4 g5g4 h3g4 h5g4 b3b4 a5a4 e1d1 a4a6 a1c1 c7d6 d1e2 >Lets be clear: no one will ever know exactly how strong Deep Blue was. All we >have are the games, and those are not convincing. > >anthony It's really hard to make any conclusions here. Yes, Zappa likes central space, and it likes the pawns in front of its king - at least more than Deep Blue and Rybka. I am not sure that Zappa's moves are stronger. An interesting experiment would be to tune Zappa's eval so that it doesn't want to play .. e5 any more (maybe de-emphasize central control), and tune its eval to want to play .. g5 (some sort of smaller penalty for open king). Then, see how it plays against the current version. I am willing to bet that the difference will be negligible - especially if you took some time to get the different style implemented right. Vas
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.