Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:36:55 06/06/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2005 at 17:25:51, Jack Lad wrote: >[Event "IBM Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Rematch"] >[Site "New York, NY USA"] >[Date "1997.05.04"] >[Round "2"] >[White "Deep Blue"] >[Black "Kasparov, Garry"] >[Opening "Ruy Lopez: closed, Smyslov defense"] >[ECO "C93"] >[Result "1-0"] > >1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 >8.c3 O-O 9.h3 h6 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.Nf1 Bd7 13.Ng3 Na5 14.Bc2 c5 >15.b3 Nc6 16.d5 Ne7 17.Be3 Ng6 18.Qd2 Nh7 19.a4 Nh4 20.Nxh4 Qxh4 >21.Qe2 Qd8 22.b4 Qc7 23.Rec1 c4 24.Ra3 Rec8 25.Rca1 Qd8 26.f4 Nf6 >27.fxe5 dxe5 28.Qf1 Ne8 29.Qf2 Nd6 30.Bb6 Qe8 31.R3a2 Be7 32.Bc5 Bf8 >33.Nf5 Bxf5 34.exf5 f6 35.Bxd6 Bxd6 36.axb5 axb5 37.Be4 Rxa2 >38.Qxa2 Qd7 39.Qa7 Rc7 40.Qb6 Rb7 41.Ra8+ Kf7 42.Qa6 Qc7 43.Qc6 Qb6+ >44.Kf1 Rb8 45.Ra6 1-0 > >http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/DeepBlue97/game2.html > >Which was the human like move that DB should not have played according to GK? 37.Be4 however this is big BS from kasparov. first of all crafty and diep in those days used to play Be4 too at 10-12 ply or so. The point is that deep blue just got 11 ply and we search deeper, so our engines play Qb6 in the end, deep blue with its shallow 1997 searches was happy to hit 11 ply and didn't get to 13 ply or so where Diep by then plays Qb6. Please note that 37.Qb6 is a forced win for white, as also Seirawan indicated. I've been writing out here in CCC a few years ago the winning line for about 20 moves or so until real huge scores for Qb6. At small 11 ply search depths however in those days engines of course just saw opposite bishops and didn't want to play it. The whole deep blue match versus kasparov is of course 1 big publicity match. We would have seen a 3d match kasparov-deep blue where kasparov would have drawn deep blue, and then a 4th match with kasparov winning and a 5th match with kasparov losing again and a 6th match with kasparov winning again. Just a show each year. Kasparov was very naive to believe he would get another match from a big company like IBM when losing to the computer. My only fear is that the same happens with Hydra. It wins 2 or 3 matches against GM's and then they shredder the machine and claim superiority and cash in their huge bonus from sheik and leave computerchess. The impact of the marketing department of IBM is what did the damage, additional to the believe this machine was unbeatable. This where it is nothing more than a 10-12 ply searching gnuchess. Which for 1997 was of course a huge search depth, but by 2005 standards it's what we get within a few seconds. Especially quotes deduced from it, like: "chess has been solved", have done the real damage to sponsors. Kasparov has been praising the machine bigtime until 1 hour after the match. The first press conference kasparov gave right after the match, he praised the programmers and the machine. I saw that press conference live at CNN. 1 hour later he had a second press conference where he was shouting, screaming, looking pathetic and accusing people of all kind of idiocy. However if we look in the logfiles as they have been published, we CAN notice a few weird things. First of all we know that the machine has crashed several times in the first few games. Where are those crashes in the logfiles? If my thing crashes, then i have to resetup the position. So you'll find the same position analyzed 2 times, or stuff given in 2 times. At least you will find some extra stuff in the logfile which i didn't find in the deep blue II logfiles. But perhaps i didn't look too well. Someone with more time to do that can do perhaps, Uri? Please note in that last game, it's obvious from the logfile that deep blue plays Nxe6 from book. Losing 9 minutes in total for just 8 moves or so. So the deep blue II machine is real slow reacting onto its openings book. Perhaps some verification search or just timing it out is real slow. Probably that last. Yet in that time that it takes to search we can see that it has no clue about the position at all. It's score for itself after Nxe6 when guessing fxe6 is 0.00 If i let diep search *before* Nxe6 i already get white up way over 1 pawn. 00:00 7 7 0 (2) 1 (0,0) -0.863 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 00:00 12 12 0 (2) 1 (0,0) 0.512 Ng5-e4 Nf6xe4 Bd3xe4 00:00 136 136 0 (2) 2 (0,1) 0.005 Ng5-e4 Bf8-e7 00:00 34150 683 0 (2) 3 (0,3) 0.512 Ng5-e4 Nf6xe4 Bd3xe4 00:00 54275 2171 0 (2) 4 (0,6) -0.083 Ng5-e4 Nf6xe4 Bd3xe4 Bf8-d6 00:00 96840 9684 0 (2) 5 (1,11) 0.218 Ng5-e4 Nf6xe4 Bd3xe4 Nd7-f6 Be4-d3 ++ g5-e6 procnr=0 terug=235 org=[218;219] newwindow=[218;520000] 00:00 114706 18353 0 (2) 5 (2,15) 0.484 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3-g6 Ke8-e7 Bc1-f4 Nd7-b6 00:00 131920 31661 0 (2) 6 (2,35) 0.415 Ng5xe6 Qd8-e7 O-O f7xe6 Bd3-g6 Ke8-d8 00:00 144763 63696 0 (2) 7 (3,72) 0.821 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3-g6 Ke8-e7 Bc1-f4 Qd8-b6 O-O Nf6-d5 Qd1-c1 Nd5xf4 Qc1xf4 Qb6xb2 00:00 147896 116838 0 (2) 8 (4,106) 0.821 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3-g6 Ke8-e7 Bc1-f4 Qd8- b6 O-O Nf6-d5 Qd1-c1 Nd5xf4 Qc1xf4 Qb6xb2 00:02 157423 349481 0 (2) 9 (16,218) 0.901 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3-g6 Ke8-e7 O-O Nd7-b6 Bc1-f4 Nb6-d5 Bf4-g3 Bc8-d7 00:12 153002 1872746 0 (2) 10 (42,412) 1.068 Ng5xe6 Qd8-e7 O-O f7xe6 Bd3-g6 Ke8- d8 Nf3-e5 Nd7xe5 d4xe5 Nf6-d7 Qd1-d3 Qe7-b4 Bc1-d2 Qb4xb2 f2-f4 00:18 158128 2987041 0 (2) 11 (54,621) 1.068 Ng5xe6 Qd8-e7 O-O f7xe6 Bd3-g6 Ke8- d8 Nf3-e5 Nd7xe5 d4xe5 Nf6-d7 Qd1-d3 Qe7-b4 Bc1-d2 Qb4xb2 f2-f4 00:51 155712 8031675 0 (2) 12 (93,984) 1.068 Ng5xe6 Qd8-e7 O-O f7xe6 Bd3-g6 Ke8- d8 Nf3-e5 Nd7xe5 d4xe5 Nf6-d7 Qd1-d3 Qe7-b4 Bc1-d2 Qb4xb2 f2-f4 02:18 156565 21748568 0 (2) 13 (139,1668) 1.226 Ng5xe6 Qd8-e7 O-O f7xe6 Bd3-g6 K e8-d8 Bc1-f4 Qe7-b4 Qd1-e2 Bf8-e7 c2-c3 Qb4-a5 b2-b4 Qa5-a3 Nf3-e5 Nd7xe5 Qe2xe5 This on a dual K7 2.1Ghz. Please note i already had in the year 2001 a dual k7 (1.2Ghz), so by now this hardware is just so so outdated. There is really no cheating in deep blue II. Let's just wonder how much money kasparov has earned on those matches in total. It really is way more than the average human being guesses. He has been paid well to lose. Only after he lost he realized the marketing problem he had created by losing to a marketing giant like IBM. That might explain his reaction a few hours *after* the match, which was an opposite reaction to his reaction directly after. Vincent
This page took 0.01 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.