Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Behind Deep Blue: 3rd print with new Hsu afterword

Author: martin fierz

Date: 07:07:14 05/10/04

Go up one level in this thread


On May 10, 2004 at 09:26:22, Uri Blass wrote:

>On May 10, 2004 at 08:38:14, martin fierz wrote:
>
>>On May 10, 2004 at 08:08:58, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On May 10, 2004 at 07:33:38, martin fierz wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 10, 2004 at 05:20:38, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 10, 2004 at 05:00:46, martin fierz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 11:51:12, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That isn't very convincing.  Did you look at _your_ PV?  move 4?  :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Order doesn't mean much to alpha/beta as it scores positions, not moves as they
>>>>>>>are played.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>First impression is that h6 and e5 transpose to the _same_ position...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Same comment.  Look at your move 5.  :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You agree with DB more than you think...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Kasparov said "this is black's only hope.  Any other move simply loses.  This
>>>>>>>makes it a fight."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>which makes it pretty clear that before something already went wrong for
>>>>>>black... if you have to play g5, even if it's still a fight, something is very
>>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>cheers
>>>>>>  martin
>>>>>
>>>>>It is not clear for me.
>>>>>I know that pushing pawns near the king is bad in a lot of cases but it is not
>>>>>always bad and this is the reason that I do not have high scores against it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>there are instances where pushing pawns in front of your king is ok. there are
>>>>others where it's not ok. they are rather easy to distinguish most of the time
>>>>(some simple rules are sufficient for this) and i'm surprised that you don't
>>>>understand that it's not such a great idea here... i know you are a born
>>>>skeptic, but perhaps you should learn to trust people with more experience
>>>>sometimes :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>The rules that I use in movei are based on attack information of squares near
>>>the king.
>>>
>>>only not having pawns near the king leads to only a small panelty and it is not
>>>enough to convince movei not to play g5.
>>
>>which basically means that movei is rather stupid in this respect :-)
>>
>>cheers
>>  martin
>
>I think that showing how people get advantage against chess programs after g5
>may be more convincing then claiming that the move is stupid without showing
>evidence.

feel free to believe whatever you want... just note that i said MOVEI is stupid
in this respect, not the move ...g5.

>I did not have time to test it but comp-comp games when the programs that play
>g5 gets into trouble(evaluation of at least +0.5 pawn for the opponent) may be
>also more convincing that black's position is bad.

...and feel free to believe that this is a better test than believing human
experts. whatever makes you happy :-)

cheers
  martin




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.