|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-15-05 | | Knight13: <Humans still make moves that computers don't see.> Then see Indochess Man vs Machine (2005). If human were making moves that computer didn't see then why the computers just crushed the humans? |
|
| Jan-15-05 | | Whitehat1963: <Knight13>, could it be due to the fact that only one of the humans was rated above 2600 -- ironically, the one who performed worst of all in the tournament? I'm not saying that computers will not routinely defeat even the best players soon. No, that's inevitable because of the rate at which computers get faster and faster, and their algorithms improve. Ten years from now, neither Kasparov, nor any of the big guns, will even be able to draw with a computer if the computer holds the white pieces. And the best they will be able to do is draw when the computer plays black. But for now, I think the top five or 10 players in the world can at least compete somewhat evenly with the best programs. But that collection of players in the Indochess Man vs Machine (2005) tournament, were far from the best players available to defend human pride. |
|
| Jan-15-05 | | Whitehat1963: On the other hand, I think someone should organize a simul exhibition between the top computer programs and the top humans -- but in Fischer Random Chess. Let's see how the computers perform when their extensive opening books get thrown out the window! Maybe they'll still whip the humans, but I think not. If they did, then it's definitely over for man-machine matches. |
|
| Jan-15-05 | | sandyobrien: in my opinion, a program is not better than a human until it cannot be beaten a human. my resoning is this: if the difference between computers and humans is that computers always preform at top-shape because they do not experience fatigue and other psychological things that affect humans. then if it is truely better, it should never be beaten by a human at top shape. however, even the best computers are beaten at times by humans, therefor i think it's fair to say that humans are currently better. is that fair? |
|
| Jan-16-05 | | Everett: <Whitehat1963 I think someone should organize a simul exhibition between the top computer programs and the top humans> You go ahead and do that. IMHO, it would be more worthwhile if we took the top GM's and put them in one tournament without the help of seconds or computers. Which makes me believe that Karpov is perhaps the last real chesschampion, since he supposedly does not use them at all for verification or training purposes. No idea if this is true... Everyone else is sucking at the silicon teet. |
|
| Jan-18-05 | | popski: <sandyobrien> Yes, I agree on this one. |
|
| Mar-17-05 | | inhalaattori: <Whitehat1963> Nice article written by Kurzweil you have there. It says:
"The Deep Fritz computer chess software only achieved a draw in its recent chess tournament with Vladimir Kramnik because it has available only about 1.3% as much brute force computation as the earlier Deep Blue's specialized hardware. Despite that, it plays chess at about the same level because of its superior pattern recognition-based pruning algorithm."
That's a huge difference in brute speed! If we forget the hardware differences and somehow managed to run Deep Fritz on Deep Blue's hardware, I would predict it would easily beat every human in existence hands down! |
|
| Mar-17-05 | | csmath: <<If we forget the hardware differences and somehow managed to run Deep Fritz on Deep Blue's hardware, I would predict it would easily beat every human in existence hands down!>> Correct. As a matter of fact I believe that 4x852 Opteron running Deep Shredder 9 or Deep Junior 9 would be superior to any top level player today in a match. But if you would use cluster processing or a supercomputer there is no doubt in my mind that any human chess player would be pulverized. |
|
| Mar-17-05 | | PekpekAdik: hello everybody! i need help. should i buy a Junior 9 or Deep Junior 9? i've read that Deep Junior is for multiprocessor pc. for sure Deep Junior 9 plays stronger than Junior 9. would i get Deep Junior's full capability & maximum playing strength with my computer's single processor (it's an intel centrino processor)? any helpful response is greatly appreciated. |
|
| Mar-17-05 | | csmath: If you don't have more than one processor there is no benefit of buying Deep Junior. Just buy Junior. |
|
| Mar-17-05 | | PekpekAdik: csmath..thank you! |
|
| Jun-10-05 | | woodenbishop: Interestingly, there is no bio on Deep Jr., which only happens to be one of the strongest chess computers ever invented (and most famous). |
|
| Jun-25-05 | | Knight13: I think Deep Junior can draw Hydra or beat it in a match. It would be interesting to see Hydra and Deep Junior competing against eachother. |
|
| Dec-03-06 | | Laskerschueler: Deep Junior played this game today against "Super-GM" Radjabov: [Event "MacchineCrea (exhibition game)"]
[Site "Florence ITA"]
[Date "2006.12.03"]
[Round "?"]
[White "GM Radjabov, Teimour (Man)"]
[Black "COMP Deep Junior 10 (Machine)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D43"]
[WhiteElo "2729"]
[Annotator "Xmas"]
[PlyCount "90"]
[EventDate "2006.??.??"]
[TimeControl "5400+30"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. Bg3 b5
9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Ne5 h5 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13. Be5 Rh6 14. Qc1 Nh7 15. f4
Be7 16. Qe3 O-O-O 17. Rad1 f6 18. fxg5 fxe5 19. gxh6 exd4 20. Qg3 Qe8 21. Qg7
Rd7 22. Rf7 Ng5 23. Rxe7 Qxe7 24. Qxe7 Rxe7 25. Rxd4 Rh7 26. h4 Nf7 27. Bxh5 Ne5
28. Be2 c5 29. Rd1 Bc6 30. g4 b4 31. Nb1 Rxh6 32. h5 Rh8 33.Kf2 Bxe4 34. g5 Bd3
35. h6 Bh7 36. Rg1 Rd8 37. Bh5 Ng6 38. Bxg6 Bxg6 39. Rh1 Kd7 40. Nd2 c3 41. bxc3 bxc3
42. Nc4 c2 43. Ne3 Ke7 44. h7 Rh8 45. Ke2 Be4 0-1 |
|
| Dec-03-06 | | alicefujimori: Playing that variation against a computer, especially Deep Junior, was rather asking for trouble. |
|
| Dec-04-06 | | ahmadov: It is sad that Radja lost but this programme is quite strong...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
| Jun-09-07 | | somitra: <Whitehat1963>:
Thanks for the nice article you provided. However, I dont agree with some of the ideas presented in that article. Specifically, when the author talks about Neural nets. I am from academics and have done some research on neural nets and know their limitations very well. Infact, in 1980s and upto the beginning of 1990s the neural nets were considered good tools for pattern recognition, but since about middle of 90s they have lost their position. The author of the article is apparently not aware of the state of the art in machine learning methods. Researchers also know now that this type of pattern recognition abilities are difficult to be generated by looking at the position, so they have gone solely towards "evaluation functions". I.e. given a position they look up at possible plans and the resulting positions, then they give a score for the line being considered. My humble opinion is that this is going to remain the future of comp chess for times to come, unless somebody dramatically changes the world of comp chess. |
|
| Jun-23-07 | | biglo: Junior's "Biography"
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/ic... |
|
| Jun-27-07 | | Whitehat1963: <somitra> I thought you'd be interested in this more recent article from the same guy. This stuff goes way over my head, but I suspect you have the specialized knowledge and interest: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/... |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | somitra: Thanks <Whitehat>. Indeed this article is indeed much more relevant. It will take time to study (not read) this one. :) |
|
| Feb-22-08 | | notyetagm: F Amonatov vs I Nepomniachtchi, 2008 Final position after 25 ♕g7xf7 1/2-1/2 ???
click for larger viewIn the final position above, after 25 ♕g7xf7, the players agreed to a draw. But http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... says that 25 ... ♘d5-e3!! wins outright for Black! <Draw agreed. But ChessBase running the Junior engine brings clarity: 25...Ne3 wins for Black! Nepomniachtchi missed an opportunity to clinch the tournament and win a full point ahead of the field.> Position after 25 ... ♘d5-e3!!
click for larger viewWhen I looked at this move with <Fritz 5.32> it saw only a small advantage for Black, like 0.50  . Could someone with the most recent <Junior/Deep Junior> engine please post the analysis of this winning move 25 ... ♘d5-e3!! that both of the 2600s playing this game missed? Thanks |
|
| Aug-04-09 | | Albertan: I just read online that a new version of Deep Junior is going to be released this summer:Deep Junior 11. It will be interesting to see if the program can cause Deep Rybka 3 any problems! Here is the link to the announcement:
http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2008/... |
|
| Sep-01-09 | | whiteshark: <Albertan> The latest 9 days old post there has been <I guess Deep Junior 11.0 will not be released> Well it's just a guess and I hope it won't come true. For now I'd like to read some resilient facts. :D |
|
| Apr-03-13 | | mrandersson: Still a great engine I use deep 10 and its still my favorite engine for style ideas and analysis. It might not be as good as the clones but you can understand some of its ideas a bit more i feel. |
|
| Feb-20-21 | | Tadeusz Nida: <yo... PROGRAMMER WANTED!!! WILL PAY REASONABLY, BUT THIS IS ONLY FOR THE GOOD OF CHESS, WE DONT MAKE MONEY ON CHESS, WE LOSE MONEY; NEED COMPUTER PROGRAMMER TO MAKE LUBEK CASTLE 2000/0000 PROGRAM IF POSSIBLE ADJUST CHESSMASTER 2000 TO PLAY IT... NOTE, PROGRAM HAS BEEN COMPILED INTO BINARY CODE, IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO RESTORE PROGRAM THAN ONE WOULD LOSE SOME INFO, GOOD THING ABOUT THE PROGRAM IS THAT IT HAS 2 FILES: CM.DAT WHERE PIECES INFO IS LOCATED AND CM.EXE CHESS ENGINE! TADEUSZNIDA@GMAIL.COM> |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
