Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:43:50 05/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2001 at 14:43:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 07, 2001 at 12:30:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>> >>>No, he didn't "prove" anything at all. You can't take output from a program, >>>output that is incomplete due to the way they produce their PV, and then try to >>>draw conclusions from it. Any more than you can take evaluations and draw >>>conclusions from them without any idea of what the evaluation looks like >>>internally... >> >>It's hard to argue with scores produced Bob!\ > >Why is that? Crafty vs Diep. Crafty says +2.5, Diep says -.2, Crafty >wins. Big score difference. You do things (queen is way better than 2 >rooks, for example) that I consider unsound. This is a different case because there is a clear explanation for the difference in evaluation. I do not find a good explanation for the difference in the evaluation between deeper blue and the top programs and I see it as an evidence that deeper blue is simply worse. I do not believe that we can learn nothing from the logfiles of deeper blue. I need to see good moves of Deeper blue when all the top programs need hours to find in order to be convinced that deeper blue was stronger than the top programs of today. The results that I see suggest that the opposite can be found(moves of deeper blue when top programs converge to a different move if you give them hours). 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.