Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:28:51 05/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2004 at 10:44:36, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 07, 2004 at 10:23:59, Ken Stone wrote: > >>On May 07, 2004 at 04:19:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 07, 2004 at 01:03:20, Jouni Uski wrote: >>> >>>>Has You looked for that afterword? There is very short comment to Kasparov >>>>vs. Junior and Kramnik vs. Fritz. Hsu still claims DB was superior to >>>>Fritz/Junior in tactics! Really? >>>> >>>>Jouni >>> >>>Let me quote Bruce Moreland: "i would love to have a shot at deep blue in blitz, >>>i tactically will destroy it". >>> >>>This was with Ferret at a 4x 400Mhz PII machine. >>> >>>I agree with Bruce. >>> >>>We must be realistic. Deep Blue needed 3 minutes to get to 10 ply in openings >>>positions. In endgames it finished 12 ply a lot. Most middlegame positions >>>however it searched 10 - 11 ply. >>> >>>On average they claimed a search depth of 12.2 ply but this is not iterative >>>depth but 'observed' depth. So the singular extension depth added to it (not >>>qsearch i guess). >>> >>>10 ply with a singular extensions and threat extensions and mate extensions is >>>in theory tactical very strong. Certainly for 1997 standards. >>> >>>However in hardware they cannot do any dangerous extension. Not only Hsu >>>explicitly mentions it, also Chrilly has done very clear statements that >>>hardware search is *that* inefficient that he had to forward prune in hardware >>>in a very primitive way. Same for Deep Blue. In its 4 ply of hardware search it >>>forward pruned, and *had* to of course. Both cannot use any dangerous extensions >>>in hardware search. Deep Blue triggers the last one at 4 ply depth left. >>> >>>This where software products pick up incredible tactics last few plies. They see >>>just near to shit last few plies. >>> >>>So you can extend a lot in mainsearch, but 10 ply - 4 = 6 ply. So within 6 ply, >>>it should see everything then. >>> >>>Let's be clear, this in 2004 is not a realistic scenario. Hsu still lives in the >>>80s. He did live there in 1997 still. His machine didn't even use nullmove which >>>by 1995 had been clearly proven for every idiot on the planet as the way to go. >>> >>>Frans Morsch *publicly* did statements about recursive nullmove. During dinner >>>every programmer has heard it, i'm sure of it. >>> >>>What Hsu writes is utter nonsense. >> >>No, what you write is utter nonsense....Hsu knows what he's talking about, but >>the so-called experts here, or at least some of them are "Out to Lunch" most of >>the time. > >I do think that there is a reason to care about the ability of a dead thing. >DB is simply dead and questions about its strength are unimportant. > >Uri I disagree. DB was the first to accomplish the task of beating the best human chess player in a 40/2hr match. It always will be the first. For that alone it can not be dismissed as unimportant. It did it in 1997. As of 2004 it hasn't been repeated. That is also not unimportant. Casually dismissing history does a great disservice to all those before us that brought us to this point. And whose efforts, publications and tips will carry us farther into the future...
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.