Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:05:43 04/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2001 at 03:02:32, Uri Blass wrote: >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 When you are material ahead? With a position that a world champion thinks is winning for white? You had better see the draw or you are going to stumble into it later.
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.