Author: Joshua Lee
Date: 07:47:18 06/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
>It doesn't quite work out like that, which is why everybody switched to a chess >4.x=type approach during the middle and late 70's. The problem is, if you are >selective at every ply, you have some probability of making a serious mistake >by eliminating a critical move. This probability is a multiplicative product >of the probability of ignoring a critical move at any one ply. The deeper you >search, the higher the probability that you will simply crash and burn due to >a tactical error. > >Remember, it has never been shown that Nxe6 is a forced win. It is a positional >gambit that looks good. But since there is no forced win of material within a >reasonable horizon, this is about positional judgement. Programs back then were >still reasonable positional evaluators, they were just tactically inferior to >today's programs due to hardware available and software decisions made because >of the hardware we had. > > >Belle was based on hardware, even in the middle 70's. It had a hardware >move generator, hardware evaluation, hardware make/unmake move, software >search. Chess 4 would require a CDC Cyber 176 as it was written in Compass >(Cyber assembly language). Those machines are long gone from the computing >market. > >Pioneer _never_ played a game. Never. It was mainly vaporware. > >Nuchess still exists. In fact, Dave Slate used to visit ICC quite a bit >(handle=rusty) and he was still working on it 6-7 years ago, although I don't >know how much he was doing to it at the time. It certainly played in some of >the later ACM events, although I don't recall it playing after 1990 or so. Have you thought about a match between Crafty /CB and Nuchess? What ideas of the Golden Oldie's Aren't in use ? I remember seing a post here about Chess 4.x that it was available at one time as a PC program in the early 80's does Can anyone elaborate on this? I plan on looking at some of the older WCCC games to see how Crafty stands up, I am willing to bet it is only going to have a hard time finding errors/tactics of Hitech , Deep Thought, Cray Blitz but i am not sure about ply Depth. I would like to know what the Opinion of the Programmers here is to what ply depth is needed to defeat Grandmasters , or /and Play as well as Hitech , Cray Blitz , DT/DB , Also which programs will be the model of ply? In Monty Newborn's book "Kasparov versus Deep Blue" on page 238 it says " In 1993 at the twenty-third ACM International Computer Chess Championship, a panel discussion was held, and it was generally concluded that a fourteen-ply search by Deep Thought or an equivalent program would be enough to defeat Kasparov. A thirteen-ply search might, in fact, be sufficient, while a twelve-ply search was probably not enough." I would like to know what exactly is an "Equivalent Program" What's the criteria??? What did Deep Thought Use to make it so different and what program now should be the example? Thankyou
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.