Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 11:10:18 05/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2005 at 05:09:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 26, 2005 at 04:50:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 25, 2005 at 19:17:08, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>On May 25, 2005 at 16:05:20, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 25, 2005 at 15:49:57, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 25, 2005 at 15:06:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 25, 2005 at 13:35:59, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 25, 2005 at 13:10:34, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 25, 2005 at 12:58:46, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 25, 2005 at 05:35:14, emerson tan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>s hydra now stronger than deep blue? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We know Kasparov, even then, was a much stronger player than Adams is today. If >>>>>>>>>Hydra, supposedly stronger than Deep Blue, loses to a much weaker player, then >>>>>>>>>that provides a strong argument that Hydra is weaker than Deep Blue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On the other hand, if Adams loses, then it says nothing about Hydra's strength >>>>>>>>>relative to Deep Blue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I guess you could always argue that Deep Blue can beat Kasparov and Kasparov can >>>>>>>>>beat Adams and Adams can beat Hydra and Hydra can beat Deep Blue, but it doesn't >>>>>>>>>seem likely. Particularly if Adams can get a convincing score. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Roger >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think that you have no way to compare Adams of 2005 with Kasparov of 1997. >>>>>>>>Humans today have more experience against computers relative to 1997 and it is >>>>>>>>not clear to me that Kasparov of 1997 was stronger against computers relative to >>>>>>>>Adams of 2005. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I also think that the fact that Kasparov lost says nothing because the 2 games >>>>>>>>that kasparov lost were because of stupid mistakes of him because of >>>>>>>>psychological reasons(resigning in a drawn position and playing a line that he >>>>>>>>was not ready to play). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hydra is also more known than Deeper blue was known at the time of Kasparov >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Kasparov could get no games of something similiar to deeper blue(deep thought >>>>>>>>was clearly weaker) when Adams has no problem to get games of something similiar >>>>>>>>to hydra. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What I said was that it provides a strong argument. I don't think it's a matter >>>>>>>of certainty. I think it's a matter of making probabilistic statements, and >>>>>>>knowing their limitations. In addition to not knowing whether the Kasparov of >>>>>>>1997 was stronger against computers relative to the Adams of 2005---as you >>>>>>>pointed out---we don't know whether Deep Blue's style might have been >>>>>>>particularly deadly to Kasparov for some reason, or whether Hydra's style might >>>>>>>be particularly vulnerable to Adams, or whether Adams has been reading this >>>>>>>bulletin board and picking up pointers on the weaknesses of computers. We don't >>>>>>>even know how successfully Hsu's team managed to tune Deep Blue against >>>>>>>Kasparov. Maybe it will eventually emerge that it's always possible to tune a >>>>>>>strong enough hardware beast against any particular human and defeat him. Who >>>>>>>knows. Maybe Kasparov wouldn't freak himself out today and lose with stupid >>>>>>>mistakes and then again, maybe he would. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So...lots of unknowns. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Comparisons are interesting and inevitable. Humans will find a way of making >>>>>>>comparisons whether we want them to, or not. I think you can continue to 2nd >>>>>>>guess yourself ad infinitum about most anything. I prefer not to do that and >>>>>>>just stick with my statement that an Adams victory provides a strong argument >>>>>>>that Hydra is weaker than Deep Blue. Does it establish it with certainty. >>>>>>>Obviously not. But it agrees with commonsense, and that's the ruler that most >>>>>>>people will bring to the interpretation if Adams wins. I think if you're looking >>>>>>>for certainty, it's best to stick with mathematical proof. Everything else is >>>>>>>fraught with contention. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Roger >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that one assumption that you make is wrong in all the discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>>Adams is not much weaker player than Kaspparov and the rating difference between >>>>>>them is only 75 elo. >>>>>> >>>>>>Here is the fide rating list: >>>>>> >>>>>>1 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2812 12 1963-04-13 >>>>>>2 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2785 25 1969-12-11 >>>>>>3 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2778 25 1975-03-15 >>>>>>4 Leko, Peter g HUN 2763 25 1979-09-08 >>>>>>5 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2753 13 1975-06-25 >>>>>>6 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2739 17 1969-03-18 >>>>>>7 Adams, Michael g ENG 2737 25 1971-11-17 >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think you're assuming that all ELO intervals are created equal. >>>>> >>>>>Kasparov is generally considered to be the most powerful player in the history >>>>>of the game. There is no other player in the world so widely known. No other >>>>>player commands the kind of fame that Kasparov does. >>>>> >>>>>Yet, in 1997, the year of the Deep Blue match, Kasparov was rated about 2795, >>>>>less than what he is today. >>>>> >>>>>Historically, I'd bet that seldom has Kasparov been 75 points stronger than the >>>>>#2 ranked player. Maybe never. >>>>> >>>>>So it's obvious that it takes 75 points or less to make a Kasparov. >>>>> >>>>>Roger >>>> >>>>Kasparov did not beat Karpov easily. >>>>13-11,12.5-11.5,12-12 are results that I remember. >>>> >>>>Later Kasparov also had problems in the beginning of the match against anand and >>>>the result was 4-4 and I remember that anand even won the first game in the >>>>match. >>>> >>>>I think that Kasparov had never big advantage relative to player number 2 or >>>>even player number 7. >>>>He was better but only slighlty better. >>>> >>>>He could win convincingly(see the match against short) but also lose(see the >>>>match against Kramnik). >>>> >>>>He could win a tournament but also could lose in a tournament and I remember >>>>that Karpov won some tournament that kasparov said that the tournament is going >>>>to show who is the real champion(Karpov was the fide champion at that time but >>>>only because Kasparov and Short did not agree to accept the conditions of >>>>fide). >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>One thing we can probably agree on: Since Deep Blue beat Kasparov and Kasparov >>>beats Adams, then if Adams beats Hydra it becomes the commonsense position that >>>Deep Blue is stronger than Hydra. >> >>I think that it is correct only if we have not the games >>but based on analyzing the games deeper blue did blunders that even free >>programs can avoid today at tournament time control on fast hardware. >> >>[D]R7/1r3kp1/1qQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/6K1 w - - 0 1 >> >>finding Kh1 and not Kf1 is easy for free programs like Fruit and Yace when >>Deep Blue failed to find that move. >> >>I saw no impressive move in the games of deep blue against kasparov that top >>programs need hours to find so I guess that the top programs of today are simply >>better than Deep Blue. >> >>Uri > >I need to correct it for yace > >Yace finds Kh1 but later changes it's mind to Kf1 >I thought that it rejected Kf1 for the correct reason when it has in the pv Qe3 >but later it changes it's mind and has in the pv Qxc6 and not Qe3. > >Fruit seems to have no problem with that position. > >New game, 40'/40 >R7/1r3kp1/1qQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/6K1 w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Yace 0.99.87: > >1.Qxb6 Rxb6 > = (0.13) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Kh2 Qxc6 2.dxc6 > = (0.24) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 > ² (0.27) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 > ² (0.27) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 > ² (0.27) Depth: 2 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 > ² (0.27) Depth: 2 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 > ² (0.27) Depth: 3 00:00:00 >1.Qxb6 Rxb6 2.Ra7+ Bc7 3.Rxc7+ Kf8 > ² (0.28) Depth: 3 00:00:00 >1.Qxb6 Rxb6 2.Ra7+ Be7 3.g3 > ² (0.33) Depth: 3 00:00:00 >1.Qxb6 Rxb6 2.Ra7+ Be7 3.g3 > ² (0.33) Depth: 3 00:00:00 >1.Qxb6 Rxb6 2.g3 h5 3.Ra7+ Be7 > = (0.24) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Ke7 > = (0.25) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rc7 3.g3 > ² (0.27) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rc7 3.g3 > ² (0.27) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Bc7 4.Rxc7+ Kf8 > ² (0.67) Depth: 5 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Be7 4.Bd5+ Ke8 5.c7 Rc8 > ² (0.69) Depth: 5 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Be7 4.Bd5+ Ke8 5.c7 Rc8 > ² (0.69) Depth: 5 00:00:00 >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Kf8 4.Rd7 Be7 > ± (0.72) Depth: 6/16 00:00:00 21kN >1.Kh2 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Be7 4.Bd5+ Ke8 5.c7 Rb6 6.c8Q+ Bd8 > ± (0.73) Depth: 6/16 00:00:00 37kN >1.Kh2 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Kf8 4.Rd7 Be7 5.c7 Rc8 > ± (0.81) Depth: 6/16 00:00:00 40kN >1.Kh2 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Kf8 4.Rd7 Be7 5.c7 Rc8 > ± (0.81) Depth: 6/18 00:00:01 41kN >1.Kh2 Rb8 2.Qd7+ Kg8 3.Ra7 Bf8 4.g3 Qf2+ 5.Bg2 Kh7 6.d6 > ± (0.71) Depth: 7/18 00:00:01 120kN >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Kf8 4.Rd7 Kg8 > ± (0.72) Depth: 7/18 00:00:01 133kN >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Kf8 4.Rd7 Be7 5.c7 Rc8 > ± (0.85) Depth: 7/18 00:00:01 142kN >1.Kf1 Qxc6 2.dxc6 Rb8 3.Ra7+ Kf8 4.Rd7 Be7 5.c7 Rc8 > ± (0.85) Depth: 7/20 00:00:01 185kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Qd7+ Kg8 3.Ra7 Bf8 4.Qe6+ Kh7 5.Qf7 Qe3 6.Qg6+ Kh8 > ± (0.72) Depth: 8/21 00:00:01 261kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Qd7+ Kg8 3.Ra7 Bf8 4.Qe6+ Kh7 5.Qf7 Qe3 6.Qg6+ Kh8 > ± (0.72) Depth: 8/22 00:00:01 410kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Qd7+ Kg8 3.Ra7 Bf8 4.Qf7+ Kh7 5.Ke2 Rd8 6.Qg6+ Kg8 7.Rf7 > ² (0.64) Depth: 9/22 00:00:01 561kN >1.Kh2 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Be7 4.Ra7 h5 5.Bd5+ Kf8 6.c7 Ra8 > ² (0.65) Depth: 9/22 00:00:01 907kN >1.Kh2 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kg8 4.Ra7 Kh7 5.Rd7 Bf8 6.c7 Rc8 > ± (0.71) Depth: 9/22 00:00:01 970kN >1.Kh2 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kg8 4.Ra7 Kh7 5.Rd7 Bf8 6.c7 Rc8 > ± (0.71) Depth: 9/26 00:00:02 1113kN >1.Kh2 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kg8 4.Ra7 Kh7 5.Rd7 Bf8 6.c7 Rc8 7.g3 > ± (0.80) Depth: 10/26 00:00:02 1479kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 h5 5.Rd7 Be7 6.c7 Bd8 > ± (0.81) Depth: 10/30 00:00:02 2318kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 > ± (0.83) Depth: 10/30 00:00:02 2450kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 > ± (0.83) Depth: 10/30 00:00:02 2670kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Bd5 Rb8 6.Rf7+ Ke8 7.Rxg7 Rd8 > ± (1.03) Depth: 11/32 00:00:03 4174kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Bd5 Rb8 6.Rf7+ Ke8 7.Rxg7 Rd8 > ± (1.03) Depth: 11/34 00:00:03 4975kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 Rb8 6.Rd7 Be7 7.c7 Kg8 > ± (1.08) Depth: 12/41 00:00:07 10063kN >1.Kh2 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 Rb8 6.Rd7 Be7 7.c7 Rb7 8.c8Q+ >Kf7 > ± (1.09) Depth: 12/41 00:00:08 10827kN >1.Kh2 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Bb1 > ± (1.11) Depth: 12/41 00:00:09 11882kN >1.Kh1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kg8 4.Ra7 Kh7 5.Rd7 Bf8 6.c7 Rb7 7.c8Q Kh8 > ± (1.12) Depth: 12/41 00:00:11 14655kN >1.Kh1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kg8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 Rb8 6.Rd7 Rc8 7.Rxd6 Kh7 > ± (1.14) Depth: 12/41 00:00:11 15138kN >1.Kh1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kg8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 Rb8 6.Rd7 Rc8 7.Rxd6 Kh7 > ± (1.14) Depth: 12/41 00:00:11 15138kN >1.Kh1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.h4 Kg8 6.Rb7 Rb8 7.Rd7 > ± (0.93) Depth: 13/45 00:00:15 20137kN >1.Kh2 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 Rb8 6.Rd7 Rc8 7.Rxd6 Rc7 > ± (0.94) Depth: 13/45 00:00:16 21682kN >1.Kh2 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 Ke8 6.Rxb5 Rc7 7.g3 h5 8.Ra5 > +- (1.50) Depth: 13/46 00:00:23 30638kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 Rb8 6.Rd7 Rc8 7.Rxd6 h5 > +- (1.51) Depth: 13/46 00:00:34 42727kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 Rc7 6.Rxb5 Ke8 7.g3 Bxb4 8.cxb4 >Ke7 > +- (1.53) Depth: 13/46 00:00:39 48302kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 Rc7 6.Rxb5 Ke8 7.g3 Bxb4 8.cxb4 >Ke7 > +- (1.53) Depth: 13/46 00:00:39 48546kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qe3 3.Qxd6 Re8 4.h4 Re7 5.Bf3 Qc1+ 6.Kf2 Qd2+ 7.Kg3 Qe1+ 8.Kh3 >Qh1+ 9.Kg4 e4 10.Qf4 exf3 11.Qxf3 > ± (1.31) Depth: 14/46 00:02:04 140058kN >1.Kh1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Kh2 h5 6.Rb7 Rb8 7.Rd7 Rc8 8.Rxd6 >Kf7 > ± (1.32) Depth: 14/54 00:02:36 175070kN >1.Kh1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 h5 6.Rxb5 Ke7 7.Ra5 Rc7 8.g4 h4 > +- (1.45) Depth: 14/54 00:02:44 184404kN >1.Kh1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Rb7 h5 6.Rxb5 Ke7 7.Ra5 Rc7 8.g4 h4 > +- (1.45) Depth: 14/54 00:02:44 184837kN >1.Kh1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Rc8 4.Ra5 Ke8 5.Kh2 Bc7 6.Rxb5 Rb8 7.Rc5 g6 8.fxg6 >Ke7 > +- (1.48) Depth: 15/54 00:03:02 204824kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qe3 3.Qxd6 Re8 4.h4 Re7 5.Bf3 Qc1+ 6.Kf2 Qd2+ 7.Kg3 Qe1+ 8.Kg4 >e4 9.Qd8 Rd7 10.Qxd7+ Kf8 > +- (1.49) Depth: 15/59 00:04:09 277144kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qe3 3.Qxd6 Re8 4.h4 > +- (1.49) Depth: 15/59 00:05:07 339937kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qe3 3.Qxd6 Re8 4.h4 > +- (1.49) Depth: 15/59 00:05:44 380942kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Bd5 Rc7 6.Ra8+ Ke7 7.Rg8 h5 8.Rxg7+ >Ke8 9.Rg8+ Bf8 10.Rh8 Rg7 11.Rxh5 Bxb4 12.cxb4 > +- (1.81) Depth: 16/59 00:10:07 653799kN >1.Kf1 Rb8 2.Ra6 Qxc6 3.dxc6 Kf8 4.Ra7 Rc8 5.Bd5 Rc7 6.Ra8+ Ke7 7.Rg8 h5 8.Rxg7+ >Ke8 9.Rg8+ Bf8 10.Rh8 Rg7 11.Rxh5 Bxb4 12.cxb4 > +- (1.81) Depth: 16/61 00:11:43 766649kN > >(, 26.05.2005) > >Uri If a single match can't prove anything, then how can some small set of positions? If you can't generalize from a single match, then how can you generalize from a few positions? However, I do agree that it would be interesting to feed Deep Blue's games into Hydra for a few weeks of analysis. Roger
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.