Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Mr. Morsch viewpoint on the differences between Deep Blue and Deep Fritz

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 00:54:23 08/01/01

Go up one level in this thread


On August 01, 2001 at 02:06:06, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On August 01, 2001 at 02:01:45, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On August 01, 2001 at 01:44:33, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>On August 01, 2001 at 01:40:03, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 31, 2001 at 18:49:37, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On July 31, 2001 at 18:36:53, Otello Gnaramori wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>Franz Morsch saying the main difference between this version of Fritz compared
>>>>>>to its predecessors did not lie so much in greater chess knowledge but more due
>>>>>>to the machines newfound ability to deal with anti-computer chess strategy, and
>>>>>>to learn from its mistakes. He also said that he believed that this incarnation
>>>>>>of Fritz is every bit as strong as the Deep Blue II that defeated Kasparov and
>>>>>>has far greater "chess knowledge".
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>For a machine with many thousands of tunable chess parameters, carefully
>>>>>adjusted by teams of programmers and GM's
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>carefully adjusted by programmers and GM's?
>>>>I doubt it.
>>>
>>>The programmers first used a gradient method, which was based upon thousands of
>>>GM games.  Then, individual parameters were hand-tuned by the GM's advice.
>>
>>I doubt if using GM's games to adjust the evaluation is a good idea.
>>I also doubt if GM's advise for parameters is a good idea because I believe that
>>the GM's do not think in the numbers of computers in games.
>>
>>The GM's have not time to calculate evaluation in the computer way and I do not
>>think the advantage of GM's against computer is because of a better static
>>evaluation.
>>
>>The advantage of humans against computers is their ability to think and change
>>their evaluation during the game and the ability to plan that is not about
>>evaluation.
>
>I might be wrong, but I rather suspect that all of the best computer chess
>programs have advice incorporated from GM's.  Perhaps some of it is indirect
>(e.g. someone advised Robert Hyatt, someone looked at Hyatt's code).

I suspect that it is only a small part of the work about chess programs.
The biggest part is testing changes and I guess that it is done by games or test
positions and not by GM's.

Building the right test positions may be also a lot of work because good
test positions should be taken from games when in part of the cases there is no
tactics and the problem is to find a good positional move.

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.