Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 08:57:41 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 11:19:41, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On June 18, 2001 at 10:40:55, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On June 18, 2001 at 10:25:36, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2001 at 10:01:45, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>> >>>>On June 18, 2001 at 08:54:10, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 18, 2001 at 08:33:21, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 18, 2001 at 08:28:08, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 17, 2001 at 01:09:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 16, 2001 at 22:59:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hello, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>From Gian-Carlo i received tonight a cool version of crafty 18.10, >>>>>>>>>namely a modified version of crafty. The modification was that it >>>>>>>>>is using a small sense of Singular extensions, using a 'moreland' >>>>>>>>>implementation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Instead of modifying Crafty to simulate Deep Blue, why didn't you >>>>>>>>modify Netscape? Or anything else? I don't see _any_ point in >>>>>>>>taking a very fishy version of crafty and trying to conclude _anything_ >>>>>>>>about deep blue from it... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Unless you are into counting chickens to forecast weather, or something >>>>>>>>else... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't agree here. It is fun. Maybe not extremely accurate, but it says >>>>>>>*something* about the efficiency of their search, which I believe is horrible. I >>>>>>>think using SE and not nullmove is *inefficient* as compared to nullmove. We >>>>>>>don't need 100.0000% accurate data when it's obviously an order of magnitude >>>>>>>more inefficient. >>>>>> >>>>>>May be you are right, if the program is running on a PC. However if you can >>>>>>reach a huge depth anyway because of hardware, may be you can afford to use >>>>>>this, because it doesn't matter too much wasting one ply depth ? >>>>> >>>>>It is not about wasting one ply but about clearly more than it and >>>>>it is clear that not using null move is counter productive when the difference >>>>>becomes bigger and not smaller at longer time control so the fact that they had >>>>>better hardware only supports using null move. >>>> >>>>How can you be so sure ? Do you really know that all of the top programs are >>>>using null move. I wouldn't bet too high on this. There may be viable >>>>alternatives to this, though not being published. >>> >>>I know that Junior and Rebel do not use null move but they use other pruning >>>techniques. >>> >>>I do not believe that the technique of no pruning+singular extension is good at >>>long time control and this is the point. >> >>You may be right or not. Who knows ? >>Who really knows the program of the Deep Blue guys ? >>IMHO, the discussion is far too speculative. >> >>I guess that these gentlemen were knowing very well what they were doing. >>I think that it's almost some kind of arrogance, to disqaulify their program >>without knowing a thing. Isn't it ? > >Now you sound exactly like Bob. Well, may be, he isn't always wrong. -:) >Noone is disqualifying their program. At the >time unbeatable. But it *is* possible to compare search model A with search >model B and conclude that B is better. DB is not a magical black box that we >know absolutely about. We know they didn't prune. So they could have even been >stronger. I just doubt that the comparison is possible, because they had a completely different platform with charactistics being basically different from what we are used to. So, for example, search coasted practically nothing compared to evaluation because it was done by hardware. You would have to simulate this too. For instance, searching an extra ply deeper by use of SE wasn't a big problem for them. But it may be a problem for a PC program. May be, I'm just a bit stubborn, but I keep on being very sceptical about Vincent's approach. Uli > > > >Best regards, >Bas.
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.