Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:12:00 05/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
>You're not counting the 4 ply guaranteed in the hardware before >extensions? Whey should they print 11 ply if they search 15 ply? 11 ply fullwidth with all those extensions is of course horrible. >Of course, you couldn't be so derisive about a 15-ply search. Never >mind the extensions that regularly cause some lines to be searched 50 to >60 ply. >But this is beside the point. You just don't understand, do you? There >are rules, and there are times when you break them. You are a strong >enough player, surely you must realize this? Deep Blue isn't as >prejudiced as you are when it comes to analyzing a chess position. It >will play a move that looks ugly if it's good, maybe that is not the >case for you? We're not talking about me only, we're talking about all GM's here. >You are claiming that b5 is a crappy move. Give some analysis. I'll >change my mind if you can convince me. How's that? Read Seirawan analyzes ICCA june 97. >>In this position singular extensions don't work very well you see. >> >>Too much possibilities to cover pieces and move with material. >>Checks/Mating threats and such are not needed here, and freeapawn >>extensions are very ineffective too, as the freepawn of white will not >>come >>further than e5. >> >>So searching 11 ply there is 11 ply and no ply more. >>Do you think it weird then that it plays like some first versions >>of my own program? > >>At analysis level diep wants to play b4? too. but when it gets deeply, >>then it doesn't consider b5 anymore, as this move becomes more >>and more horrible, concluded from lines DB never saw in that game. >> >>Vincent >You have been preaching about how much better your software is than >everyone else's for a while "at long time controls". A long while, in Yes, i'm not talking about winning games. Just 1 horrible move can make you lose. >fact the reason we have the Korrespondence Kup is *because* of your >entirely unsubstantiated claims -- claims (to paraphrase: my software is >by far the best in the world at long time controls) that didn't hold up >when push came to shove (though I'll admit it was a small sample). You >still perpetuate this nonsense. How many more years will it be before >you give it up? KK kup was fake. Diep got black in the only 2 important games. Just 2 games. And Diep got outbooked by both programs. Game against Rebel it was directly lost. Diep's horrible in French. Just look at ICC the % of wins of Diep in French. >You don't have a clue about what DB understands. I don't have a lot of >concrete details myself, but at least I bother to do some homework. I >*have* spoken with Murray Campbell about Deep Blue and about the match, >(I posted the details some months ago), and I'll believe his informed >opinion over your "deep blue sucks" ranting any day of the week. > >Of course, if you could get Diep up to 2500 SSDF or so on an MMX 200, >I'd reconsider what you write -- at that point I'd begin to assume that >you know what you're talking about. This looks like this test conducted by Fernando Villegas. My program was suddenly good because it managed to win quicker against a small computer. 2500 SSDF says nothing. Don't you get it, all programs sent to Sweden have played say 10000 auto232 games or something. Sweden became one big book tuning event. In the future this might change if books get more variaty. Until then this Sweden list is laughable. How can a program like Fritz5 which loses normally to all those programs can get on top? How can Rebel9 get stronger than 8, considering that the only 4 things changed are interface,few extensions to solve some tricks, BOOKLEARNING, and with capital letters BOOK. The program didn't play better, yet it got a higher elorating because it scored better in matches. That kind of comparision is wrong. It won't play better against humans than Rebel8 nor will it play better in tournaments. A simple 1.d4,d5 2.Bf4 was enough for Diep in aufsess tournament to beat it. No doubt that when i send my program to Sweden that i will have played some hundreds ot auto232 games too (i'm only having a Pentium pro 200 and a laptop 133, so i can't produce thousands of games like the pro's). Your computerchess insight is laughable. A program just playing 6 games in its life you call God. Where i need to get a rating in Sweden based on cooked lines after hundreds of games, or thousands of auto232 games, before you believe me? >Dave Gomboc
This page took 0.01 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.