Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: 10 hour study of game 1 of 6 deep blue vs kasporov

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 13:48:27 09/12/01

Go up one level in this thread


On September 11, 2001 at 10:27:40, Uri Blass wrote:

Remember they received the chips 2 weeks before the
match started. It would be weird if there was not a single bug
inside the thing.

It obviously was even worse tested than any other program is in
this world.

Best regards,
Vincent

>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



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.