10th aniversery of deep blue win: interesting news article

[Leto]

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying given time the GM would adapt his or hers play accordingly, which would fit computer play at the expense of his/her human training.

GM's are far too good to need to set traps, that's an insult to all GM's! This really shows the lack of understanding you have about grandmaster play!

You give computers too much credit. Of course they chew you up, but you're more than 5 classes lower than a GM!

Much weaker players just don't get it!

You can't judge GM play when you're 1000 to 1400 points weaker!

In fact, until you reach 2300 you don't even understand all the basics

It's time you got out of your cage!

What is there to adapt to? If the GM can't calculate as deep as the chess engine, they will lose, simple as that.

[Uri Blass]

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying given time the GM would adapt his or hers play accordingly, which would fit computer play at the expense of his/her human training.

GM's are far too good to need to set traps, that's an insult to all GM's! This really shows the lack of understanding you have about grandmaster play!

You give computers too much credit. Of course they chew you up, but you're more than 5 classes lower than a GM!

Much weaker players just don't get it!

You can't judge GM play when you're 1000 to 1400 points weaker!

In fact, until you reach 2300 you don't even understand all the basics

It's time you got out of your cage!

What is there to adapt to? If the GM can't calculate as deep as the chess engine, they will lose, simple as that.

I also expect the GM to lose based on history results but it is not simple as that.

Chess is not a game that is only game of calculation and there is something that is callled positional understanding.

Uri

[mschribr]

The thing that most amazes me is that supposedly Kasparov claims he has never been able to look at the deep blue logs. Even though they were (and still are) available on the web. I could email 'em to him if he would shut that claim up.

Those logs have a problem. The logs on the ibm web site have no independent certification as being created by deep blue during the match. For the logs to be valid the judges would need to see them being created by deep blue during the game. The logs need to given to the judges during the match. The judges did not verify the logs on the ibm web site.

[Leto]

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying given time the GM would adapt his or hers play accordingly, which would fit computer play at the expense of his/her human training.

GM's are far too good to need to set traps, that's an insult to all GM's! This really shows the lack of understanding you have about grandmaster play!

You give computers too much credit. Of course they chew you up, but you're more than 5 classes lower than a GM!

Much weaker players just don't get it!

You can't judge GM play when you're 1000 to 1400 points weaker!

In fact, until you reach 2300 you don't even understand all the basics

It's time you got out of your cage!

What is there to adapt to? If the GM can't calculate as deep as the chess engine, they will lose, simple as that.

I also expect the GM to lose based on history results but it is not simple as that.

Chess is not a game that is only game of calculation and there is something that is callled positional understanding.

Uri

Positional understanding, or more commonly known as positional knowledge, can and has been programmed into chess engines. Positional knowledge is simply the knowledge of how to maximize the potential of your pieces by positioning them in certain ways. The more we understand how best to maximize the potential of pieces, the better the engine's positional knowledge will be.

It is even possible to strip all of Kramnik's positional knowledge and put it into a chess engine. Kramnik's positional knowledge plus the computer's obvious advantage in calculation speed would produce an engine that is simply superior to Kramnik. This is simple logic.

[Uri Blass]

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying given time the GM would adapt his or hers play accordingly, which would fit computer play at the expense of his/her human training.

GM's are far too good to need to set traps, that's an insult to all GM's! This really shows the lack of understanding you have about grandmaster play!

You give computers too much credit. Of course they chew you up, but you're more than 5 classes lower than a GM!

Much weaker players just don't get it!

You can't judge GM play when you're 1000 to 1400 points weaker!

In fact, until you reach 2300 you don't even understand all the basics

It's time you got out of your cage!

What is there to adapt to? If the GM can't calculate as deep as the chess engine, they will lose, simple as that.

I also expect the GM to lose based on history results but it is not simple as that.

Chess is not a game that is only game of calculation and there is something that is callled positional understanding.

Uri

Positional understanding, or more commonly known as positional knowledge, can and has been programmed into chess engines. Positional knowledge is simply the knowledge of how to maximize the potential of your pieces by positioning them in certain ways. The more we understand how best to maximize the potential of pieces, the better the engine's positional knowledge will be.

It is even possible to strip all of Kramnik's positional knowledge and put it into a chess engine. Kramnik's positional knowledge plus the computer's obvious advantage in calculation speed would produce an engine that is simply superior to Kramnik. This is simple logic.

In theory everything that humans can do computers can do if the right program is written.

Practically it is not correct that all the positional knowledge of humans is known by the engines and I even can compose positions when I score better than the theoretical result against engines thanks to better positional knowledge.

Engines for example do not have positional knowledge about fortress positions and I can compose positions when they will lose instead of drawing by fortress.

Uri

[Leto]

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying given time the GM would adapt his or hers play accordingly, which would fit computer play at the expense of his/her human training.

GM's are far too good to need to set traps, that's an insult to all GM's! This really shows the lack of understanding you have about grandmaster play!

You give computers too much credit. Of course they chew you up, but you're more than 5 classes lower than a GM!

Much weaker players just don't get it!

You can't judge GM play when you're 1000 to 1400 points weaker!

In fact, until you reach 2300 you don't even understand all the basics

It's time you got out of your cage!

What is there to adapt to? If the GM can't calculate as deep as the chess engine, they will lose, simple as that.

I also expect the GM to lose based on history results but it is not simple as that.

Chess is not a game that is only game of calculation and there is something that is callled positional understanding.

Uri

Positional understanding, or more commonly known as positional knowledge, can and has been programmed into chess engines. Positional knowledge is simply the knowledge of how to maximize the potential of your pieces by positioning them in certain ways. The more we understand how best to maximize the potential of pieces, the better the engine's positional knowledge will be.

It is even possible to strip all of Kramnik's positional knowledge and put it into a chess engine. Kramnik's positional knowledge plus the computer's obvious advantage in calculation speed would produce an engine that is simply superior to Kramnik. This is simple logic.

In theory everything that humans can do computers can do if the right program is written.

Practically it is not correct that all the positional knowledge of humans is known by the engines and I even can compose positions when I score better than the theoretical result against engines thanks to better positional knowledge.

Engines for example do not have positional knowledge about fortress positions and I can compose positions when they will lose instead of drawing by fortress.

Uri

I did not say that chess engines currently have all the positional knowledge of humans, I said that it is possible to give chess engines that knowledge, which you admitted in your first sentence.

[bob]

It's a foregone conclusion that Deep Blue wasn't very strong, clearly weaker than today's top engines, and that Kasparov could have played much better. Psychology definitely played a large role in that match.

"wasn't very strong" yet it blew away every program 10 years ago. Sort of a "self-contradiction" IMHO. It was far from "not very strong"...

[bob]

The thing that most amazes me is that supposedly Kasparov claims he has never been able to look at the deep blue logs. Even though they were (and still are) available on the web. I could email 'em to him if he would shut that claim up.

Those logs have a problem. The logs on the ibm web site have no independent certification as being created by deep blue during the match. For the logs to be valid the judges would need to see them being created by deep blue during the game. The logs need to given to the judges during the match. The judges did not verify the logs on the ibm web site.

Sorry, but that's wrong. The logs _were_ verified _during_ the match. I even saw a copy of the key position's log emailed to me by Ken Thompson within 24 hours of the "fiasco" happening.

You seem to demand that they disprove a negative, which is impossible. There are way too many ways to actually pull off cheating without detection. But for every move DB found in that match that was questioned by Kasparov, other programs have since shown that the moves were not surprising at all and are reproducible by several different programs.

But the logs are available, they match the games, there's no unusual aspect to them whatsoever...

[Leto]

It's a foregone conclusion that Deep Blue wasn't very strong, clearly weaker than today's top engines, and that Kasparov could have played much better. Psychology definitely played a large role in that match.

"wasn't very strong" yet it blew away every program 10 years ago. Sort of a "self-contradiction" IMHO. It was far from "not very strong"...

Maybe strong a decade ago, but it certainly isn't "very strong" today. You can use today's engines to see that they find Deep Blue's move in a fraction of the time on ordinary hardware, and they can even find stronger moves.

[smirobth]

In theory everything that humans can do computers can do if the right program is written.

Practically it is not correct that all the positional knowledge of humans is known by the engines and I even can compose positions when I score better than the theoretical result against engines thanks to better positional knowledge.

Engines for example do not have positional knowledge about fortress positions and I can compose positions when they will lose instead of drawing by fortress.

Uri

I did not say that chess engines currently have all the positional knowledge of humans, I said that it is possible to give chess engines that knowledge, which you admitted in your first sentence.

As Uri says, it is possible _in theory_ to write a program that has all of the knowledge a human has. But theory and practice are a different matter. In the case of fortresses I don't believe any programmers even know how to do it yet. If they did, someone would have, and it would be big news.