Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:34:16 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2004 at 06:52:25, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 07:26:14, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 01, 2004 at 07:02:11, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>>On May 31, 2004 at 07:22:55, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 31, 2004 at 07:15:31, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 30, 2004 at 14:58:45, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Kasparov-Deep Blue >>>>>>Philadelphia (6) 1996 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The Opening has been a sucess for Kasparov. He has good central control, and >>>>>>prospects of a gradual queenside advance. More importantly, there is no direct >>>>>>plan for Black, so Deep Blue drifts for a few moves with disastrous >>>>>>consequences. The bishop is already a little clumpsy on d7; I suspect a strong >>>>>>human player would have sunk into thought, and devised a plan for deliverating >>>>>>his game. >>>>>> >>>>>>[D]r2q1rk1/pp1bbppp/2n1pn2/3p4/2PP4/1P1B1N2/PB1N1PPP/2RQ1RK1 b - - 0 1 >>>>>> >>>>>>11...Nh5? >>>>>>This over-ambitious idea met with strong disapproval from most strong human >>>>>>commentators. However, Yasser Seirawan said "oddly enough, one well-known chess >>>>>>computer scientist suggested that the move may well be OK, but it might need a >>>>>>highly advandce program and computer in a few years' time to justify this move". >>>>>>I suspect that this is a case in point of someone believing that a strong >>>>>>chess-playing program is doing something profound, when in fact is just >>>>>>crunching numbers, Few GMs back in 1996 felt that 11....Nh5 was anything other >>>>>>than a bad move. >>>>> >>>>>This type of position is very difficult for any chess program. >>>>> >>>>>Sometimes, the engines will find some way to make a very strange move work, like >>>>>11. .. Nh5. Even in this case, it's not very good if a person is using an engine >>>>>to help him understand the position. >>>>> >>>>>Note that search depth is not important here. For another example of this, see >>>>>Kasparov-Fritz, X3D, game 3, where Fritz was doing 18-19 ply in the middlegame. >>>> >>>>I disagree that search depth is not important. >>>> >>>>The fact that 18-19 plies of Fritz was not enough does not mean that search >>>>depth is not important. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Rrrrrr. :) >>> >>>See how the scores for the top four or so moves here change with depth. (Or >>>trust me: not much.) >> >>It proves nothing. >> >>The fact that the scores do not change much does not mean that the moves that >>the program suggest at bigger depth are not better. >> >>If you want to convince me you need to show me that depth X+2 scores less than >>55% against depth X from the relevant position >> >>[D]r2q1rk1/pp1bbppp/2n1pn2/3p4/2PP4/1P1B1N2/PB1N1PPP/2RQ1RK1 b - - 0 1 >> >> >> >>You can use some commercial programs against themself at depth X+2 against depth >>X for X=14-18 so you may get enough games(for me 50 games are enough). >> >>A better solution may be to use unequal time when you give 27 hours per game for >>one side and 3 hours per game for the second side. >> >> >>If after 50 games you do not get at least 55% for the deeper searcher then you >>convince me that the position is position that programs do not earn much from >>deeper depth. >> >>Of course you can choose dead drawn position and get exactly 50% but I doubt if >>you can find a position when both sides have chances based on the games and >>still get less than 55% after 50 games. >> >>Uri > >No. > >:) > >The deeper searcher will score better, because it will play better later, when >there are either tactics, or positional decisions which are searchable. > >For the purely strategic moves, extra depth will give you pretty much nothing. > >Vas In this case the quality of the purely startegic moves is not very important because they do not decide the game but what happens later. Uri
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.