The problem is that the most direct method is far less than optimal. The pawn on b5 is clearly weak, and it should not be hard to bring it crashing down. They were notoriously materialistic, and a tactic used by a player such as Kasparov, who would get deep into the head of his opponent, was to bait the machine with a 'poisoned pawn', allowing him to direct the game in a direction of his choosing. It is White to play.īefore trying to simply guess what was played, if you don't already know, it is important to remember that the year is 1997, and engines, and even supercomputers, played quite a bit differently than today's uber-engines. This was the position on the board after 35 moves. Let's take a look at the controversial moment first. So the engines agree with Deep Blue's choice, is that all? Not quite. However, the purpose had been to highlight refinements and revelations uncovered with modern hardware and chess engines, and since there had been no disagreement with the so-called cheating move, it was not mentioned. Looking over the games with a top engine such as Komodo 8, and comparing with the computer logs, sheds new light, and even reveals a missed win by Kasparov. It has inspired books, documentaries, and theatrical productions. – Nearly eighteen years later, the matches between Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue continue to stir the imagination and fascination of people around the world. Komodo 8: Deep Blue revisited (part three) Still no ChessBase Account? learn more > The ultimate chess experience every day, Pla圜 welcomes 20,000 chess players from all around the world – from beginner to grandmaster.Memorize it easily move by move by playing against the variation trainer. Still no ChessBase Account? learn more > Learn openings the right way! Build and maintain your repertoire.Still no ChessBase Account? learn more > Real Fun against a Chess Program! Play, analyze and train online against Fritz.Top authors like Daniel King, Lawrence Trent and Rustam Kasimdzhanov Still no ChessBase Account? learn more > Thousands of hours of high class video training.Still no ChessBase Account? learn more > Sac, sac, mate! Solve tactical positions of your playing strength.Store your games, training material and opening repertoire in the cloud. Still no ChessBase Account? learn more > My Games – Access your games from everywhere.Still no ChessBase Account? learn more > 8 million games online! Updated weekly, our definitive database has all the latest games.The algorithms was hardware specific (e.g.Deep Blue pruned less than modern engines.Deep Blue had very basic move ordering ( by Alvaro Cardoso supports my argument).If Stockfish did that, you wouldn't be able to use the engine on an iPhone. Deep Blue was running evaluation on hardware, make no sense in 2018.Deep Blue used MPI for parallel search.Deep Blue didn't use late move pruning (I failed to see in the paper).I'm very confident all modern engines use it. Deep Blue didn't have something known as null move pruning.IBM had 32GB hash table, we can do better than that in 2018.Deep Blue was running on a dedicated machine.Deep Blue didn't focus on deep search as much as modern engines like Stockfish ( (chess_computer)#Aftermath supports my argument).2018, nobody uses human grandmaster games for tuning.Please note I was too young for the project, so my understanding might not be 100% correct.ĭeep Blue had a paper. There was a somewhat related discussion on Rybka:ĭeep Blue is out-dated, it was made before this century. It's not always possible to compare engines by number of moves searched per seconds. How it's done is implementation dependent. There's no universe definition on how an engine calculates number of moves per second. it was unclear how exactly IBM derived the number. IBM claimed the machine could search for 200 million moves per second, while Stockfish in the recent AlphaZero match could "only" search for 80 million per seconds on a modern multi-core machines.
0 kommentar(er)
