Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:34:45 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2001 at 16:18:22, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>It proves nothing. > >Then why are people asking for such positions as in: > >'I will believe DB was better when I see a move it found >others dont' > >(at least Amir and Bucham have said this) > >>If singular extension can help then Ferret or another program with singular >>extensions could also see winning a piece after a lot of time. > >Yes. That's why I mentioned Bruce ;) > >A lot of time could mean several weeks though. Several weeks? Remember tht it was only deep thought and everyone agree that programs of today are not so slow that they need weeks to see things that Deep thought could see in few minutes. Even in the nolot positions when singular extensions help many program can solve the positions that deep thought solved after few minutes in some hours and here programs cannot see nothing after hours not only from the root position but from the position some plies after the root position. Uri > >>I bet that Crafty with singular extension and it is not important how you >>implement singular extensions cannot see winning a piece in that position even >>after 24 hours. > >I dont understand what you mean with this. If the implementation >of SE is crap it'll never find anything. > >I _know_ that the current implementation in crafty is quite sub-par >as I'm the one who wrote and tested it. > >From what I gather, not having SE means that you have 20 extra ply >to crunch through. Common sense tells me that not in the position that you posted and my experience tells me that even in the nolot test when there were singular extensions were relevant the difference was not 20 plies. I need to see positions when not singular extensions do difference of 20 plies. > >I don't see a way to solve this without DB/DT unless you want to >wait for weeks or months. I can't miss my computer for that long. > >>If I am right than it means that there must be a bug in Deep thought. > >Could be. Or it could just have been right and better than the >current comps. I have a lot of examples when they were clearly worse than the current comp in tactics. I cannot believe that the only example that you can find when they are better in games is something that no program can understand even after you show it the lines and go forward few moves in the game. > >I understand the latter explanation is unacceptable to some people here. It is unacceptable because it against the common sense of people. 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.