Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:20:11 04/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2001 at 11:05:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I believe that less than 18 plies are enough to see material equality or repetition in the relevant position if you use the right extension(it is not enough to see forced repetition if white decides not to win material and probably even 30 plies are not enough for it). I believe that part of the top programs use the right extension for this purpose(I remember that Deep Fritz's main line leaded to equality in material after Deep search). 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.