Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:40:22 05/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2001 at 09:43:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 07, 2001 at 03:19:05, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 06, 2001 at 23:53:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 06, 2001 at 19:46:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On May 06, 2001 at 02:28:14, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>I gave Deep Fritz to analyze similiar number of nodes to Deeper blue and Deep >>>>>Fritz seems to be clearly better in tactics. >>>>> >>>>>Deep Fritz needs only 191728 knodes to see the line Rf5+ Ke3 >>>>>It means only 1 second if I asuume 200,000,000 nodes per second. >>>>> >>>>>I believe that Rf5+ failed low at depth 17 for Deeper blue for the reason Ke3. >>>>>The pv of deeper blue at smaller depthes is Rf5+ Ke2 >>>> >>>>11 ply for those who are good in math and a bit more real to the world. >>> >>>Uri is correct. Unless you _still_ dispute the direct statement(s) by the >>>Deep Blue team. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>Deep Fritz probably does better extensions than Deeper blue because Deep Fritz >>>>>see big fail low at depth 16. >>>> >>>>Fritz hardly has dangerous extensions. >>>> >>>>Diep has. note i am not extending passers much. Just a bit and only >>>>now and then. >>>> >>>>The Big fail low comes at 12 ply for DIEP. Then it sees Rf5 is losing >>>>because of Ke3 though it initially wants to go e3. Then i did a state >>>>check to see what the deepest search lines are. You can see it >>>>yourself: >>> >>> >>>What does any of this matter? Their score was bad... yours is bad, black >>>is lost... I don't see where you see it any faster than they did... >> >>I see that Deeper blue score is clearly better than the score of other programs >>after search. >> >>Deeper blue said only 2.1 pawns for white after 73 seconds of search when other >>programs has no problem to see clearly better score for white. > > >You are making the same mistake _everyone_ makes. Taking scores to be an >absolute assessment of the truth. IE try Vincent's scores. And compare them >to mine. I have seen many games where we were different by 1-2 pawns, and >more often than not mine has been right. It is _easy_ to cause this. > >I take the more practical approach of "+ is good for white, - is good for black" >but I don't fall into the trap of +1.7 here is much better than 1.4 by that >program. IE don't look for an eval to be an "absolute" evaluation of the >position. To do so is a _big_ mistake. For me difference of more than +2 in the evaluation of Deeper blue and Crafty is convincing. I am not talking about the difference of 1.7 and 1.4. There is even a difference of more than 1 pawn between Deep Fritz's evaluation and Crafty's evaluation but Fritz can find the right pv. I cannot say 1.7 of Crafty is better than 1.4 of Deeper blue but I can say that 4.x of Crafty and 3.x of other programs are better than 1.x of deeper blue and the evaluation of deeper blue was 1.x if you look at depth 15(the depth that Crafty found the line with Ke3) I am almost sure that Crafty can beat Deeper blue if Crafty searches the same depthes that deeper blue searched and my guess is that Crafty on an alpha is clearly better than deeper blue. Uri
This page took 0 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.