Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:19:33 09/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2001 at 22:46:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 11, 2001 at 12:32:27, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > >In diep i only play a move that failed high after research is finished. >if time gets out then i do not play the move failing high at this moment >i play th ealternative which was searched better. > >Still many programs however to today would play the failed high move. > >As bob indicates this looks easy case to me without much discussions. If you fail high, but can't resolve the fail high before running out of time, I don't see any problem whatsoever with playing the fail-high move. However, if you fail low, and resolve that, then fail high on two moves without resolving either, then playing one of them is _very_ risky...
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.