Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:26:40 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2001 at 08:11:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 26, 2001 at 07:50:25, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 26, 2001 at 07:31:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On April 26, 2001 at 02:37:39, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>game 1: >>>> >>>>In this position >>>>R7/3r2k1/4b1p1/P2N3p/5P1P/3K1BP1/5b2/8 w - - 0 1 >>>> >>>>Deep Fritz played 56.Kc4 0.47/15 Rc7 57.Kb4 0.28/16 Rd7 and the following >>>>position happened >>>> >>>> >>>>[D]R7/3r2k1/4b1p1/P2N3p/1K3P1P/5BP1/5b2/8 w - - 0 1 >>>> >>>>Deep Fritz played 58.Nb6 0.09/16 time when it pondered 8:57 >>>>and used 1007 knodes per second. >>>> >>>>I believe that it is a mistake in the time allocation of Deep Fritz. >>>>It should use more time for 58.Nb6 and the time of pondering was not enough. >>>> >>>>The following facts are obvious: >>>> >>>>1)Deep Fritz had a possible move that force repetition(58.Kc4) >>>>2)The score of Deep Fritz dropped and was only slightly above 0 >>>> >>>>I believe that programs should use more time in these situations. >>>>The time control was 40/90 and it means that Deep Fritz probably had more than >>>>45 minutes to calculate and in this situation that is not common I would prefer >>>>to use at least half of them. >>> >>>Oh this is not a matter of time division, i think Fritz time division >>>is more than ok. It's about evaluation here. >> >>I agree that Deep Fritz evaluation was wrong but deeper search could probably >>avoid the error because Deep Fritz's evaluation was negative in the next move. >> >>It could suspect that something is wrong in the evaluation because the score was >>positive and went down. >> >>It could also repeat the same position and I think that both of these factors >>should convince it to use more time in the relevant position(you cannot get >>evaluation that is always right and if you have possible repetition and a reason >>to suspect that the evaluation is wrong then using more time is a good idea). >> >>Uri > >My endgame evaluator isn't *that* great, but it just needs 8 ply >to see what deep fritz probabl doesn't see the first 16 plies. > >Searching deeper is always cheap to say, junior is winning all those games >because even a preprocessor with some knowledge is better as a >non-preprocessor without any king safety! I do not know if Deep Junior is a preprocessor. Amir said that he did some preprocessing in Junior6 but hopes to get rid of it and the version that played was not Junior6. I do not have Junior6 but based on my knowledge of previous versions of Junior I guess that Junior6 does not do a lot of preprocessing and other program like Shredder5 or Tiger14 do more preprocessing). I am also not sure if Deep Junior is going to win the match. The result is now only 6.5-2.5 so maybe Deep Fritz can win(it only needs 4 wins out of 15 games to get 12-12 and it is not an impossible task) 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.