Author: Jesper Antonsson
Date: 09:43:48 11/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2001 at 08:49:06, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 18, 2001 at 08:13:48, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >>On November 18, 2001 at 05:06:24, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>Well, you don't show anything there to back up the claims that their algorithms >>are outdated. No new revolutionary algorithms have been presented that would >>make DBs outdated, > >It is known that DB did not use the null move pruning. >The null move pruning was known in 1997 but they did not use it. Yes, I know. And if they didn't use it, they probably had good reasons to. So, no new revolutionary algorithms since then, as I said. > > and how complex/good their eval is we don't know. Since they >>could make complex eval for free in hardware, it might just be much better than >>todays micros. > >I do not believe that it was better than today micro. >I analyzed the games andthe fact that deeper blue could not see Qe3 in the pv of >game 1 suggest that their search rules and their evaluation was inferior. Could you explain why one single situation would make you draw such far-reaching conclusions? >I saw no evidence for a move that top programs of today need a long time to find >and other people also analyzed the games and found no evidence for it. > >It seems that every move in the games can be played after some minutes by one >of the top programs(not always the same program). Exactly, not the same programs. So I can prove that Fritz has no better eval than a random move generator, since some of my ten thousand random move generators will play the same move as Fritz? If what you describe here is your analysis, then I think it's too shallow and fundamentally flawed in it's methodology. To get something useful, I think one should compare *one* engine at a time, see what moves differs, and thoroughly analyse those moves to see 1) if the micros choice is better, 2) if it sees it for the right reasons or just by "luck". The results would say something about which machine is better, but what you describe does not. >>Perhaps a real expert may be able to say something about this if he was to >>scrutinize the DB moves in the last match and compare them to the moves Fritz >>would make if given a lot of extra time. But it would be hard to be fair there, >>since "nodes" aren't equal. >> >>Regards, >>Jesper > >My impression based on analysis that Deeper blue was only 2-3 times faster than >Deep Fritz on p800 in some cases because deep Fritz was 2-3 times slower in >finding similiar pv to Deeper blue. Always? Remember, since they didn't use null-move, they might be slower than they would be otherwise, average case, but find some nice gems quicker. >There are logfiles of the games of the last match deeper blue-kasparov so it is >possible to check it. I would if I had the time, but I haven't right now, so I will have to take your word for it. You have not convinced me yet that your conclusions and methods are correct, though. Regards, Jesper
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.