|Jan-29-04|| ||popski: Hmm, looks like there's no way out... 25. ... fe5 26. c6 |
|Jan-29-04|| ||Kenkaku: A silicon beast taken down by a Wing Gambit. |
|Jan-29-04|| ||rythm: it is apparent that the silicon beast is no beast but a stupid worm!this is the worst game ive ever seen |
|Jan-30-04|| ||TrueFiendish: With all due respect, if it's the worst game you've ever seen, you need to get out more. |
|Apr-15-04|| ||InspiredByMorphy: Great play by Bronstein! Fierce development. |
|Apr-15-04|| ||weepingwarrior: Bronstein has had many a game with chess programs, and he's been very successful too! I am not surprised by this game, very well played, It's just Bronstein in his glory. It's as if he handicapped Blues king side. |
|Sep-26-07|| ||Jesspatrick: This is the horizon effect in full view|
|Oct-23-11|| ||rwbean: I've always thought this game looked dodgy ... 13 ... e6 is better, and 14. Nb5!! is crushing but would be really hard for a human to see (14. Nb5 Qxh1+ 15. Bf1 Qxh2 16. d5)|
|Aug-05-12|| ||Patanjali: Lets probe the position at move 13 a little using an oldschool 3GHz Pentium 4, 128MB hash, 1 core, HT=off, all 32bit engines..|
<engine> prefers e6 to Qg2 in...
Fritz 5.32 (1997) 15+m
Rebel 12 UCI (2003) 53s
Spike 1.2 Turin (2006) 1s
Rybka 3 (2008) 7s
Fire 2.2 xTreme (2011) 28s
Houdini 1.5T3 (2012) 19s
Now there's a packet of insight. I think what this reveals is that Deep Thought's 13.. Qg2 is well within normal expected play for computer of its time.
|Aug-05-12|| ||SChesshevsky: <rwbean: I've always thought this game looked dodgy>|
I agree. I'm not sure if it's a one off but the program sure looked like it fully emphasized material gain and didn't value things like development and tempo very much at all.
|Aug-05-12|| ||Patanjali: @SChessshevsky
Have you tested any engines from the early 90's to see if the tendency for material gain was typical for engines from that time period? It would be interesting to see some actual results.
If in doubt, here's a bunch of old school chess programs from the 80's and 90's that you might like to test move 13 on.
|Aug-07-12|| ||SChesshevsky: <Patanjali: Have you tested any engines from the early 90's to see if the tendency for material gain was typical for engines from that time period?>|
I'm no expert in computer chess but this match looks like it indicates chess engines were just trying to get used to the interplay between the basic chess themes like material, tempo, pawn structure, open lines, etc.
It's fascinating how Deep Thought would seem to play excellent chess at times and then poor chess other times, It's bad play would seem to indicate a poor decision on a theme trade-off at a key point.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, computer chess is kind of sterile now that the pure processing power of the engines makes many thematic poor moves OK or even good because the engine can calculate so far out that it knows the weakness cannot be exploited before other variables come into play.
It seems that at least in Deep Thoughts time, chess practice was still the key variable as opposed to simple future telling by calculating out all the variatons.
|Aug-12-12|| ||Patanjali: @SChessshevsky
My guess is that computer chess programming back in the 90's was a little unrefined, mostly due to the fact that programmers were yet to discover how to write better, more "intelligent," algorithms. As a consequence, early 90's engines often behaved materialistically, and lacked an appreciation for more subtler, strategic play.
But for me, computer chess becomes ever more interesting as I watch the digital intelligence rapidly evolve in both hardware and algorithic complexity, function, and performance. Consider that it took humans over 200 thousand years of evolution to reach 2850 elo. By comparison, computer intelligence eclipsed that lofty figure in only 60 or so years, without even having attained self-awareness!
So I look forward to seeing how all this progresses over the next decade or so, especially now that the prospect of enhancing human potential through the use of genetic engineering, neurotechnology, biochemistry, and epigenetics has become a viable possibility. And with greater refinement in genetic and neurotechnology sciences, who knows.. maybe we'll be the ones dominating the computers :)
|Aug-12-12|| ||Patanjali: <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...>|
|Aug-31-12|| ||Patanjali: http://www.wired.com/medtech/health...|