Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:29:07 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2001 at 20:06:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 26, 2001 at 17:30:11, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 26, 2001 at 17:24:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 26, 2001 at 16:57:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>If it is just that, then there are ways to avoid these problems. Expensive, but >>>>less expensive than brute force. >>>> >>>>The problem I abhor is when my program gets oursearched. This by far outweigths >>>>any other minor problem. Brute force always has this problem, not just in one >>>>game out of 1000. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>> >>>Maybe that was Hsu's point. At 200M nodes per second you probably won't >>>get outsearched if you search every node twice. :) >> >>Hsu is wrong. >> >>Deeper blue made a tactical mistake in the second game against kasparov because >>it did not search deep enough. >> >>It did not see that the final position is drawn and it proves that search is >>important also at 200M nodes per second. >> >>Uri > > >By that definition every lost game makes a tactical mistake. The point is that it is not a mistake because of a zunzwang so recursive null move could help to find the right move faster. Deeper blue Since _nobody_ >has shown a draw in that position with a computer, I can personally forgive >deep blue as well. I remember that Diep could see enough in order to play 44.Kh1 and not 44.Kf1 in the position some plies before the drawn position. I guess that other programs can also do the same if you give them enough time. Here is the relevant position [D]R7/1r3kp1/1qQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/6K1 w - - 0 1 Deeper blue searched 192 seconds and played 44.Kf1 I am interested to know what programs can see after 192*200,000,000 nodes. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.