Author: Albert Silver
Date: 20:36:55 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2001 at 22:52:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On April 26, 2001 at 20:29:07, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>Here is crafty's output on my notebook. Lots of mind changing...
>
>I will guarantee you that if a program plays Kh1 over Kf1 it is
>_not_ because it is avoiding a draw. They are not going to see that
>from here...
>
>The following is the best 4 moves and scores, searched for
>60 seconds. NOthing marks the first 2 as being much different.
>the third is close...
>
> ({14:+1.85} 1. Kf1 Rb8 2. Ra6 Qxc6 3. dxc6 Kf8 4. Ra7 Rc8 5. Rb
>7 h5 6. Rxb5 Ke7 7. Ra5 Rc7 8. Ke2 h4 $18)
> ({14:+1.88} 1. Kh2 Rb8 2. Ra6 Qxc6 3. dxc6 Kf8 4. Ra7 Rd8 5. Rb
>7 Rc8 6. Rxb5 $18)
> ({14:+1.54} 1. Kh1 Rb8 2. Ra6 Qxc6 3. dxc6 Kf8 4. Ra7 Rc8 5. Rb
>7 Ra8 6. Rxb5 Ra1+ 7. Kh2 Re1 8. Rd5 Bxb4 9. cxb4 Rxe4 $18)
> ({14:+0.39} 1. Qxb6 Rxb6 2. Ra7+ Kf8 3. Kf1 Bb8 4. Rd7 Bd6 5. K
>e2 Be7 6. Ra7 Bd6 7. h4 Rb8 $14)
>
>
>I don't want to even talk about Diep or any other program playing Kh1 or
>not playing Kf1 until I see real PVs and scores to prove they know that Kf1
>leads to a draw...
Frankly, I don't even understand why this topic keeps coming up still. I already
showed Vincent, and others who saw the posts, that there were many lines that
the program considered a draw only because it hadn't seen certain potential
threats, and only AFTER it had seen how to counter those threats could one say
the program saw a draw. Otherwise it is merely a horizon effect. It sees a draw,
because it _hasn't_ seen the potential to complicate. When it does, the eval
will swing again, until it has neautralized those attempts, after which one can
safely say the program sees a draw. So if Diep announces it's a draw nice and
early, one can safely say it is a horizon effect, nothing more.
Albert
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.