Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:32:27 09/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2001 at 10:43:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 11, 2001 at 10:27:40, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 11, 2001 at 10:19:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 11, 2001 at 08:51:20, K. Burcham wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>i understand your explanation for the Rg8 and the Rf5 moves bruce. >>>>that deep blue might have seen a loss in both of those lines. >>>> >>>> >>>>i only use the word blunder when during normal game mode or in >>>> analysis mode the score will jump maybe 2 or more points, >>>>when the next move is made. >>>> >>>>for example in this deep blue blunder SOS scores this position >>>> black is down -1.65. at depth 15. you can see in the analysis that >>>>the score imidiately jumps and climbs to +6.41 for white with 44. ...Rd1. >>>> >>>>in the case of the deep junior vs shredder, in the world championship >>>> i have analyized the 5+ change in score. this was not a single >>>> move blunder like defined above. in the deep junior game >>>> shredder didnt have a clue of the deep pawn value and its ability >>>> to stop them. then when it finally saw what was really going on >>>>shredder started adjusting its eval very quickly, and the score jumped >>>> 5+ points. >>>> >>>>and i am aware that you already knew all of this----i was just explaining >>>> my logic for my applicaton of the word blunder. >>> >>>this just means that SOS doesn't understand the position yet. When I ran >>>this, I got +3.5 or so. On Rd1 my score gets significantly worse. Which >>>simply means that they probably searched the alternatives deeper than I did >>>and found that they were bad also. >> >>I rememeber that they admitted that Rd1 was result of a bug. >>Their score for Rd1(-1.80) does not make sense >>in every reasonable depth >> >>They did not play Rd1 because they found >>that the alternative is worse. >> >>Uri > > >I don't believe -180 is the "score" I think it is an indication of a fail >high. They didn't resolve a fail high unless a second fail-high occurred, >since knowing that A is better than B is enough to play A. If you know >that A and B are both better than C, then you have to re-search A and B to >find out which is the better move. I believe their bug was in the code that >handled this when a time-out occurred. -260 was the score for Rf5 based on their output and it means that the score for Rd1 was more optimistic for black. It seems clear to me that the stupid mistake was result of a bug. I guess that the bug happens only after failing low and not being able to solve the fail low or to finish the iteration on time. 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.