Author: Amir Ban
Date: 04:06:31 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2000 at 20:57:13, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On July 23, 2000 at 13:23:50, Amir Ban wrote:
>[snip]
>>It's assumed that Deep Blue played perfectly, and it doesn't look like it.
>
>Who would assume that? It is a completely lunatic assumption, since perfect
>play would mean annoncing mate after the first move (or perhaps before any
>move).
>
>>Kasaprov went wrong on 27... d4? Instead 27... Qg5 gets a draw (28. g3 f4 29. g4
>>{29. Nd6 Qh5 30. Qc3+ d4 31. Qc5 Qxh3 draw } f5 30. Qxd5 hxg4 31. Qxg5 Rxg5
>>draw). Since the position after white's move 27 is a draw, there's not much
>>significance to DB's moves before that. If anything, it blew a small advantage
>>with the suspicious 26. Qxb6?! and 27. Qc5?!
>
>Are you certain that the ce would not change if you doubled or tripled your
>search depth in plies?
>
>How much difference is their between your evaluations of the choices your
>program chooses and the choices made by Deep Blue? Is it more than 1/2 of a
>pawn in any of the cases?
I think these are the wrong questions to deal with a concrete position analysis.
A draw is a draw, and a win is a win, and computer chess is after all about
chess. The position is concrete, and it's not a mystery that will unveil itself
when doubling the search depth.
Amir
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.