Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:35:13 08/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 1999 at 14:33:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 12, 1999 at 13:32:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 12, 1999 at 09:47:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 12, 1999 at 08:32:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On August 12, 1999 at 01:33:35, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 12, 1999 at 01:10:14, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>This example shows that the null move is not a very good idea. >>>>>>If you need more 3*2=6 plies to see the right move and there is no >>>>>>zunzwnag(playing no move cannot help black) then you are not close to see >>>>>>everything to depth n-r with null move. >>>>>> >>>>>>I thought depth n when you use null move with R=2 means that except for >>>>>>zunzwangs you analyse everything to depth n-2 and I see that it is not the case. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Well, null-move is as you described, but what is shown above is "recursive >>>>>null-move", which seems to be pretty popular, and some people abbreviate >>>>>this as simply "null-move". It is the sort of search algorithm that gives >>>>>people a happy feeling inside about how deep they are searching, but leaves >>>>>holes for programs like DB to drive a truck through. Of course, Bob has pointed >>>>>this out more than once before. Consider how much is being chopped out of some >>>>>13 ply search, and you might agree that Bob isn't just being stubborn: there's >>>>>actually quite a big difference in coverage. >>>>> >>>>>Of course, those who use recursive null-move are making the reasonable gamble >>>>>that the extra coverage isn't beneficial at their search speeds. >>>>> >>>>>Dave >>>> >>>>Now this is pure BS. Even at 5 0 Deep blue gets kicked silly by a laptop. >>> >>> >>>total bullshit. >> >>>no counter-argument needed. When was the last time you beat my program? My >>>program can't beat Cray Blitz. Cray Blitz couldn't beat Deep Thought. Blitz >>>or tournament. >> >>Well there are a lot of eyewitnesses of the following: >> >>Rebel beating Anand > >Rebel lost 1.5-.5 in 40/2 time controls. Deep Blue beat _Kasparov_ in a >6 game match at 40/2 time control. What does this have to do with a micro >beating deep blue? > > > >>Rebel beating deep blue junior at a small laptop. > >Rebel didn't play "deep blue junior" as I have already explained. It played >a stateless web-based version that was playing _lots_ of simultaneous games >all over the world. It is a favorite IBM demo site that is always busy. Hsu >thought that it might be a 2200-level player at first, but later revised that >estimate downward because of all the simultaneous users hitting on it at the >same time via the web. > >Get off of this kick. I have seen them play micros at ACM events. I have >seen them play GMs at ACM events. I watched them put together the best-ever >win/lose ratio on ICC, playing the strongest GM players there, at _any_ blitz >time control they wanted (ie 2 12 which is far from blitz, yet they put everyone >away, maybe losing 1 game at blitz out of 141, with no weak players in the mix). > > > > >>Shredder beating Rebel in paderborn. >> >>Now deduction: >> >>DB junior is a laptop version of deep blue. Rebel played at >>a laptop against DB. > > >DB junior isn't a 'laptop'. Where do you get your information? It is a >single-processor SP workstation, accessed via a web browser. It is fed >positions, it responds with moves. It knows nothing about 'games' but only >about positions it is given. It was put together as a demo. That is all that >it is. It was _not_ advertised as the normal deep-blue junior machine. The >real DB junior has had quite a career beating GM after GM in demonstration >matches around the world. In fact, no GM has beating it in a 'match' so far >that I am aware of. > > > > > >> >>Shredder beating Rebel chanceless in world champs, >>So shredder beating Deep Blue chanceless. > > > >what utter nonsense. The Yankees beat the Braves, The Braves beat the >Phillies, the Phillies beat the Yankees. Your theory is shot... > > > > >> >>Not very surprising for 'depth' fanatics like you either, >>as Deep blue just gets 11 or 12 ply, and shredder regurarly got >>to 15 ply in paderborn. > >different plies. No null move. No forward pruning. No tactical mistakes. >I'd take 12 plies with no null move any day I could get it. Because I have >_seen_ them play chess. I have seen them beat a program (Cray Blitz) that >can clean your clock any day of the week. I have seen them do this 3 times. >Seeing tactical shots 10-20 plies _before_ CB would see them. > >You can claim that they are inferior all you want. But you can count the >games they have lost to micro computers on one hand, and have plenty of fingers >left over to scratch your head in amazement with. > > > > > >> >>So it just gets outsearched positional completely. > > >Yes... so badly that it doesn't lose to other computers, to humans, heck, >it might not even be able to beat or draw itself... > > > >> >>Secondly i played myselve against deep blue junior, andit >>played positional so bad (tactical it played perfect), >>that with a lot of manoeuvring i got it play all kind of >>crap pawn moves, which even a 3 ply search in DIEP would not >>have make it play such horrible moves. > > >you played against the web-based toy. Ask Dlugy about DB junior. He worked >with them for a good while. Ask Benjamin. Or Byrne. Etc. You might discover >they have a _totally_ different opinion. > > > > >> >>Anyway. All facts together leads to deduction: >> >>Shredder beats Deep Blue chanceless. > > >Sometimes you make a lot of sense. Other times you make a lot of nonsense. >Unfortunately, you are doing the latter and not the former here. You've never >seen them 'in person'. So you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm >reminded of a famous quote: At Paderborn there were never more than 2 terminals showing DB junior. It was with BIG Capitals. It's main problem and weakness was that it played without book obviously. Most of the times replying d5. It searched for a lot of seconds a move. First move about 14 seconds. It had its own time display. So lag or network delay didn't matter. I had to wait sometimes if bad luck for a minute, and it showing it had thought only for a few seconds. if IBM with big capital colorful letters says DEEP BLUE JUNIOR, then why do you argue that? Does IBM LIE? > "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your > mouth and remove all doubt..."
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.