Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:43:39 09/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2001 at 17:57:42, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 12, 2001 at 17:04:13, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On September 12, 2001 at 16:07:45, Uri Blass wrote: >>[snip] >>>I think that your program understands the position better than >>>Deeper blue. >>> >>>It is more logical to assume that Deeper blue is wrong and not that >>>all the top programs are wrong. >> >>Try all the top programs on this one: >>2b5/1r6/2kBp1p1/p2pP1P1/2pP4/1pP3K1/1R3P2/8 b - - bm Rb4; id "WAC.230"; >> >>6 billion votes "AYE!" >>1 vote "NAY." >> >>The one vote may be right, and the 6 billion wrong. >>[snippity-snip] > >I remember that there was a discussion about this position and it was not clear >if Rb4 wins. It is unclear. It is the only move with winning chances, but it is possible it is only a draw. There are other test problems as well that no chess engine can answer correctly. >I do not say that the majority is always right but I tend to believe the >majority if I have no evidence that it is wrong and in the case of the draw >against kasparov in game 2 I tend to believe that programs see 0.00 some plies >after the root for the right reason. It is certainly possible that modern chess programs might do better in some positions. Certainly not on all of them, especially those plagued by null move. >program of today also can find Qe3 when programs like Genius3 could not do it >so I tend to believe that deeper blue's evaluation is similiar to some old >programs that cannot find Qe3 and not to the new programs. That is an interesting theory. >I also tend to believe that the new programs are better than the old programs >and the fact that they can find Qe3 (even without 0.00 evaluation) when old >programs like Genius3 or Deeper blue cannot do it is not luck. Genius 3 and Deep Blue are not comparable, in my opinion. We know that there were 4000 tunable parameters in the eval. Does *any* modern program have this? >The new programs are simply better. >They have better search rules and better evaluation function. I think that there are surely some improvements in searching and also in pruning. A 500-1000x improvement in speed cannot simply be discounted. Surely, the trees searched are very different in shape. In fact, they probably could have made a speculative version of Deep Blue that would search much deeper. However, given the horsepower at their disposal, saftey margins allowed them the luxury of much more forceful searching. This sort of decision could truly cause them to miss some solutions that could be found by deep searching. I have not seen any actual evidence of this, but it is certainly possible.
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.