Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:37:41 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 05:38:47, stuart taylor wrote: >On July 08, 2002 at 02:28:03, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On July 08, 2002 at 00:32:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On July 06, 2002 at 20:15:06, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I suspect that search may see that the right move help to push the opponent king >>>>>closer to the corner relative to the wrong moves and it may be enough. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Yes, that looks like the best thing to try and work on, doesn't it? >>>> >>>>If not, can I ask two questions?: >>>>1)What should be done during the near future to push computer elo forward as >>>>much as possible? >>>>2)If Deeper blue was really much stronger than todays tops, what was that due >>>>to? Better long-term planning? Seeing deeper? >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>>Huge speed. >>> >>>It was doing most things worse than the best micro programs, but it was doing it >>>so fast that it was eventually stronger. >>> >>>Hum... Let me rephrase for the sensitive people out there. There was nothing >>>Deep Blue did better than the best micro programs. But it was so fast that it >>>allowed it to hide its defficiencies. >>> >>>Shit. That's not very diplomatic either. Let's try again: Deep Blue was build >>>around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that >>>nobody noticed until their creators published their paper. >>> >>>Oops... OK, once again: >>> >>>Bob likes Deep Blue a lot, and that should be a reason good enough to convince >>>you that it was well designed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe ;-) >> >>I too am a DB fan. Just like Bob. >> >>But I actually agree with you here. I don't think DB did anything >>*spectacular*. >> >>But I also know that Program X will be a _LOT_ stronger on hardware 100,000x >>times faster than anyone else has. No matter how horrible the software side is. > >Didn't DB have some deep understanding of things like bishops and other things, >due to GM's working on it? (even if overall it wasn't that great if not for the >speed). > And, now a very important question WHAT DID WE SEE ABOUT LONG TERM PLANNING OF >DB WITH ALL THAT SPEED? WERE THERE ANY INNADEQUACIES, OR, WAS IT SEEN THAT IF >THE PROGRAMING WOULD HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY BETTER, IT WOULD HAVE OVERCOME ALL >INNADEQUACIES, (THE LITTLE BIT IT DID STILL HAVE)? >S.Taylor I don't think the term "long-term planning" goes well with _any_ computer chess program, much less deep blue. They simply don't do it. Their depth of search and evaluation does seem to give them a "planning emulation" if you want to call it that. But not in the sense that _we_ plan anything...
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.