Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:02:32 04/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2001 at 01:13:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 29, 2001 at 00:37:49, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>On April 27, 2001 at 23:56:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 27, 2001 at 16:53:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>I never got a 0.00 score. I get a near to 0.00 score, so a positional >>>>draw and it is *not* a horizon effect. >>> >>> >>>Then I would say your evaluation there is _wrong_. Just like those evals >>>where you have a queen vs 2 rooks and you say you are 2-3 pawns _ahead_ >>>and then get destroyed in endgames when the rooks control everything. >>> >>>> >>>>DIEP's evaluation is biggest of the world. So obviously i have things inside >>>>it which others do not have and probably never will. >>> >>> >>>Biggest isn't always best. Did you ever consider a career in the World >>>Wrestling Federation? That is the kind of comments they make all the time. >>>It is the kind of comment I would _never_ consider making. >> >>Sorry, I can't resist this. But I think if DB would have used nullmove, hash and >>no singular extensions, it would been much much stronger. Suppose Crafty >>searched not 15 ply, but 25 ply. All the time. Don't you think that would blow >>DB right out of the sky? I think so. > >DB used hashing, so I don't know what you mean there. They didn't do it in >the chess chip due to lack of time, but they did it in the software part of >the search like everybody else does it.. I'm not ready to say that null-move >is better than SE. That's not clear at all. > >at 1M nodes per second, crafty can usually do 12-13 plies in a long game. >to get to 25 is _not_ going to happen at DB speed for Crafty. IE DB was 200-700 >time faster in NPS. If my branching factor is 3, then that would get me 5-6 >plies _max_ more if I could do 700M nps. I don't know that that would be >enough to beat DB. It would be competitive probably... > > > > >> >>Yet, DB being 1000x faster than current hardware, they could have reached that >>depts. To follow this thread a bit, they would have seen the draw :-) > > >They were typically reaching 18 plies or so. Seeing the draw is _way_ deeper >than that. I don't think 30 plies is enough to see a forced draw in all >variations... the key variation is 60 plies deep... You do not need to see a forced draw in order to see an evaluation that is close to 0. 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.