Author: Don Dailey
Date: 09:26:23 12/26/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 1997 at 06:40:27, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>This is not to say (lest I be blasted) that Junior is doing anything >>wrong. But don't expect to see him winning 99.5 percent of all his >>games against the very best programs because he is seeing 5 ply >>farther! >> >>-- Don >You should not quote KK and claim that I believe that Junior is always 5 >plies deeper. I want to find out about a phenomena. The first think I do >is collecting data. >Something is different in this program. And you can make your jokes >about me collecting long-main-lines. But what I saw in Paris and in >Paderborn is obviously not normal. I did not pay any attention to who made this comment and wasn't directing it at any one in particular. Sorry about the sarcacism. >I don't remember the hardware they used in Paderborn 1995. I don't >remember how many NPS I saw on screen. Maybe I have written it down in >my Paderborn article. I don't remember. But what I know from memory is >that the numbers were to high relating to the 1995 state of the art >hardware/software. >Also the main lines WERE definetely too long. >There must be something different in Junior's search. >And - as I said - when we have it, we will find out using test-suites >and all kinds of experiments. >In paderborn I did not take much energy in finding the weird thing out, >because CSTal killed Junior and I though: hm - a weird program this >junior. It does many NPS but is unable to beat CSTal. So the many NPS >are wasted computation. >Of course after Paris I cannot say/think the same :-) Perhaps they are doing heavy pruning on the computers moves? If you modify the selectivity such that much heavier pruning takes place on the computers side you might arrarnge extra depth that results in play that is safe but not opportunistic for the computer. I remember Richard Langs programs USED to have the characteristic that they would see anything you could do to them. In some experiments me and Larry Kaufman did, it would quickly see that you could win a piece and avoid the loss. But if you forced the piece losing move and let it think for the winning side, it could not find the win without a very long think! Very strange. But this was the best program in the world and pehaps still is. But this makes some sense to me. I don't think a single chess game has ever been won without an error on the losing side. If your program NEVER made an error (you wish!) it would never lose (unless of course the opening position is a loss for one side or the other.) I have known people who play like this too. They would be paranoid about their half of the board and never take even slight risks for a chance to win. Often these players did quite well although they played boring chess. I've even seen their opponents walk away in disgust! But these players often got very good results. It's up to their opponents to prove there is something wrong with this style. -- Don
This page took 0.03 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.