Author: blass uri
Date: 11:46:01 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 14:13:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>That is the main difference I see. We _all_ saw the king safety/blocked >>>position problem in Dortmund. We didn't see any such problem in DB'97. >> >> >>It does not prove that the evaluation of DB'97 was better about king safety. >>I guess that with 200M nps Junior could find better moves and avoid the king >>attacks in the games. > > >There you are simply wrong. No matter how deep you search, there is _always_ >a position that doesn't expose the tactics until one ply deeper. I agree that there are positions that Junior will fail against king attack but the practical question is if humans could practically go to these positions if Junior was faster(200M nodes per second). I believe that in the games against kramnik and piket Junior could survive. I do not say that it could always survive but there is a good chance that it could also survive in 6 game match against kasparov assuming 200M nps and that you will not see king safety problems. If your >evaluation doesn't recognize trouble without seeing it in the search, then it >is going to make mistakes. > >I have lots of details about what kinds of things DB's eval had for king >safety. I can tell from the speed, that DJ doesn't do the same things at >all. Nor do I. You cannot know only by the speed. You need to know the source code in order to know. I believe you that Deeper blue evaluates more things but the question is if it evaluates the correct things. > Nor does Hiarcs. Or any other program, fast or slow. You need to know the source code of all the other programs in order to know it. It is possible that other programs can evaluate the same thing faster because of an idea that Hsu did not think about. 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.