Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:13:15 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2000 at 14:11:20, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 22, 2000 at 13:28:28, blass uri wrote: > >>Deeper blue had a positive evaluation before trading queens. >> >>The evaluation of Deeper blue was based on Deeper blue's logfile >> >>9(6) 3 T=46 34...Qxf1 >>10(6) 2 T=130 34...Qxf1 >>11(6) 2 T=168 34...Qxf1 >> >>The evaluation when deeper blue started to ponder (hash guess Rxf1) was >> >>7 (4) -30 >>7 (6) -66 >>8 (6) -50 >>9 (6) -50 >>10 (6) -50 >>11 (6) -48 >> >>Deeper blue lost 0.5 pawn in the evaluation and the only reason that I can >>explain it is that it is a root processor. >> >>I guess that something like this cannot happen to Deep Junior because it is >>probably more knowledge based program. >> >>Uri > >The behavior you describe is quite normal. After a queen exchange in the >next move often other more accurate tables are used which may cause such >score differences. I do the same in Rebel. That doesn't make the program >a root processor. A root processor is a program that totally (or to a >great extend) relies on the evaluation on the root. If you read the IBM >pages it is said DB has something similar (a short investigation at the >root). That makes DB no root processor. > >Ed The only root processing they do is to make a decision about which set of evaluation weights to download to the chess processors. This decision is made once at the start of a search. So there might be a bit of what you would call root processing, perhaps. But it isn't what I would consider a very accurate description. I have different tables of values I select at the root. But all my evaluation work is done at the tips, just like DB did...
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.