Author: blass uri
Date: 22:35:51 01/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2000 at 23:22:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 15, 2000 at 07:02:26, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On January 13, 2000 at 08:00:31, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2000 at 06:31:20, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>On January 13, 2000 at 03:48:22, Amir Ban wrote: >>>[Event "ACM 1991"] >>>[Site ""] >>>[Date ""] >>>[Round ""] >>>[White "Cray Blitz"] >>>[WhiteElo ""] >>>[Black "Deep Thought II"] >>>[BlackElo ""] >>>[Result "0-1"] >>> >>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. f4 e5 >>>7. Nxc6 bxc6 8. fxe5 Ng4 9. Be2 Nxe5 10. Be3 Be7 11. O-O Be6 >>>12. Qd4 O-O 13. Rad1 f6 14. b3 Qe8 15. Na4 Qg6 16. Bf4 Rf7 17. Qe3 >>>Raf8 18. Qxa7 Qxe4 19. Bd3 Qb4 20. Qe3 Ra8 21. c3 Qb7 22. Rf2 >>>Qa7 23. Qxa7 Rxa7 24. Be3 Ra5 25. Bb6 Ra8 26. Bc2 Bf8 27. Re1 >>>c5 28. Be4 Ra6 29. Rb1 f5 30. Bc2 Rb7 31. Bd8 g6 32. Re1 c4 >>>33. Rb1 Bd7 34. Nb2 Ra8 35. Bg5 Rxa2 36. b4 Bb5 37. Re2 Bg7 >>>38. Nd1 Ra6 39. Bd2 Nd3 40. Ne3 Ra2 41. Bxd3 cxd3 42. Rf2 Rxd2 >>>43. Rxd2 Bxc3 44. Nf1 Bxd2 45. Nxd2 Re7 46. Nf3 h6 47. Rb2 Re4 >>>48. Kf2 g5 49. g3 f4 50. gxf4 Rxf4 51. Kg3 h5 52. Nd2 h4+ 53. Kg2 >>>Bc6+ 54. Kg1 Rg4+ 55. Kf2 Rg2+ 56. Ke3 Bb5 57. Ra2 Rxh2 58. Ra5 >>>Re2+ 59. Kd4 h3 60. Rxb5 Rg2 61. Rb8+ Kg7 62. Rb7+ Kg6 63. Rd7 0-1 >>> >>>The move in question is 27 ... c5. >>> >>>Black gets material advantage on move 35. So far as I can see, the reason is >>>white's 34'th move, that gives up a pawn for no good reason. White is already in >>>positional trouble before that because of the weak 32. Re1. White can play, for >>>example, 32. Bg5 and remain fine. If Deep Thought said +2 after 27 ... c5 it >>>must have been a bug. >>> >>>Amir >> >>You are right, there is no tactical win at all after 27... c5 (which is >>a good move BTW). >> >>Again NO tactical example which would prove the superiority of the Hsu >>chip. So far I have seen none. Am I mistaken? >> >>The remaining question and that is for Bob to answer, if 27... c5 gives >>a +2 score then all the remaining DT-II moves after 27...c5 would have >>been +2 at least. If not I agree this must have been a bug. >> >>Ed > > >All I remember about this, which happened 12 years ago now, was that when they >played c5, their eval was about +2 pawns and a bit. Which was (in deep thought >pawn units of 128) around +3. It may have started off nearer to +2. For the >next several moves, our score was only slightly down, while theirs slowly >improved, until suddenly ours dropped. Hsu gives a few details in his new >book... > >But from my perspective, that is all I remember. I remember Murray commenting >about the initial fail high, saying "hmm.. seems as though it wants to pick on >your bishop.." or something similar. When the PV came out, it was way deep, >and if I recall correctly, they followed moves that were singularly extended >with an * or something that made them stand out. The pv had a bunch of them. > >I don't recall their score ever dropping. Hsu's comments in his book recalled >the same. I saw other such games as well... IE the game against *socrates at >what I think was the last ACM event. At one point, *socrates (which was >actually searching faster in terms of NPS that DT) thought it was was winning. >DT. DT thought it was winning and the eval showed this. There was great >discussion including IM Mike Valvo and someone else on the stage. They finally >concluded that DT was having problems in transitioning from one stage of the >game to another or some such (ie it might have been a big developmental bonus). > >Hsu said "we don't do that" and the discussion continued, until *socrates >started seeing the eval drop. And if finally reached the -2 area to match >DT's +2 that it had had for a long time. Mike Valvo looked at that position >overnight, and gave a lecture on it the next day. He thought it was quite >remarkable what they had seen, and told the crowd "DT really gave *Socrates a >chess lesson last night." I'll try to ask him on ICC when I see him to see if >he remembers the game and position where the interesting stuff happened. He >probably does, as I don't think he ever forgets a chess position. (this is the >same IM that played 8-10 programs in a blindfold simul, for example...) > >It's too bad we don't have access to the box, as it would answer a lot of >questions. But we don't, and there is not much we can do about it, except >to continue to work to reach their level... > >It will happen, IMHO, although not within a few years... I do not believe that deep thought is really better than the commercials of today. If hsu want to convince people to invest money in deep blue then he first has to convince people that deep thought was really strong. I understood that he needs a lot of money for deep blue and not for deep thought so if this is the case I suggest that deep thought will play against people from the relevant position when deep thought's evaluation was +2(after 27...c5). I do not believe that deep thought can win against the right defence(32.Bg5 instead of 32.Re1). I am also interested to see the games with the >90% results of deep thought against fritz3(p90) and the games with the 38:2 result of Deep blue Junior against the commercial programs. If hsu want people to take him seriously he must publish these games. Uri
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.