Author: Amir Ban
Date: 12:25:35 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 12:43:13, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>On January 11, 2000 at 06:58:28, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On January 11, 2000 at 05:25:49, Amir Ban wrote:
>>
>>>On January 11, 2000 at 01:10:56, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>Worst of all, I think he considered Deep Blue to be a micro program with a big
>>>>box around it. He really had no comprehension of how much better 200 Million
>>>>NPS is than 200 Thousand NPS. Statments about how {paraphrasing} "computers
>>>>will never make a move like that" indicate to me that he prepared by playing
>>>>against micros. That is like preparing for Linares by running through a bunch
>>>>of games with C club players. Deep Blue will see things that other computers
>>>>simply will not see without allowing absurd time intervals. If he allowed the
>>>>micros to think for one week per move he might get something commensurate. But
>>>>then, the playing experience would not be the same, because he would be
>>>>operating at a slow, postal rate and have plenty of time to think through the
>>>>possibilities.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This has been said countless times before, and the follow up question: Show us
>>>one move that Deep Blue (or Deep Thought) made that a micro needs a week to
>>>find, has never been answered.
>>>
>>>Amir
>>
>>I pointed out one in the first match, in the game DB won, where Kasparov had a
>>mate in 1 for about 10 moves. A subtle rook move made the entire variation
>>work, where the rook move preferred by the micros at the time would have
>>resulted in deep trouble. I don't recall the game now, but I remember that
>>DB was white (again, in match 1 which it lost) and its king was hemmed in on
>>the kingside with Kasparov threatening mate. But he never got to play the
>>mate...
>>
>>Other examples are the Nolot positions. Micros get 1-2-3 maybe. Deep Thought
>>did better. And that wasn't deep blue.
>
>You'd need to document the first paragraph of this, but I agree that the Nolot
>test does show the tactical power of DT. I ran some of those positions for
>several days and didn't find solutions that DT found much more quickly.
>
>This is not true of all of the Nolot positions, however, but then again DT isn't
>*that* fast.
>
>Let's have another thread about the Nolot positions.
>
>Here are my results as of now:
>
> DT Ferret
> 4x450
> ------ ------
>1 6hr
>2 2min 31sec
>3
>4 2.5hr
>5 2hr
>6
>7 6hr
>8
>9 9min
>10 2min 11sec
>11 5min 48sec
>
>I ran mine for 3 minutes per position. As of this moment I am starting a run at
>two hours per position. Another version got position one in 1hr23min, we'll see
>how well this one does. I'll fill the chart in tomorrow. If either of you
>would like to run any of these, go for it.
>
>Scoring is done for "find and hold", meaning your time stars from the initial
>fail-high, and you get no credit if you switch to some other move before the end
>of the test.
>
>bruce
I last ran it at 10 minutes average per position two weeks ago and didn't find
ANY solution. I used to find the solution to find the solution to #1 in 1-2
minutes, but don't anymore, due to evaluation changes.
The meaning of all this is not clear. I'm certainly doing worse than you, and
while I never ran these positions for hours, I'm sure I'll do worse than DT. But
on this first position I used to do better than you, and 300 times better than
DT, so what does it mean ?
While the Nolot positions are interesting, I'd still like to know if DT/DB ever
showed tactical superiority over micros in actual play. There is one move (c4
vs. Fritz3) where it was shown to be inferior to micros, or at least to several
of them.
Amir
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.