Author: Rafael Andrist
Date: 13:42:15 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 16:01:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 10, 2002 at 14:19:34, Rafael Andrist wrote: > >>On April 10, 2002 at 11:52:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>1. Deep Blue had 50x the knowledge of todays programs. >>> >>>I don't know that that statement is true. I am certain, based on details >>>that I learned by talking to Hsu at the last couple of ACM events, that they >>>had knowledge that other programs did not have. We had a giant discussion >>>one night about opposite bishops. A version of chess genius was playing >>>(I think at least) and it was saying the position was a dead draw. Hsu >>>pointed out that it wasn't a draw at all and that "deep blue prototype" >>>knew this. He later showed us what it thought about how to win. A GM >>>had explained this to them a couple of years earlier and they had built it >>>in to the program with good results. They mentioned _lots_ of such special- >>>case evaluation terms that were suggested by the various GM players they had >>>helping... >> >>IIRC you've mentioned this example already some time ago. You surely had some >>very interesting discussions with Hsu/Deep Blue team. Did you implement results >>of those discussions also in Crafty or do you have to keep this secret? Or do >>you think that adding some of the discussed knowledge would only slow down >>Crafy? >> >>regards >>Rafael B. Andrist > > >The opposite-color bishop stuff is in crafty in a form. However, I did it >after a GM suggested it, not because of the Hsu discussion. And what I did >really wasn't directed toward opposite-colored bishops, but rather was an >endgame evaluation idea based on "split passed pawns" are more difficult >to handle than connected passed pawns when a king or king and minor has to >"hold the fort"... Yes, and in a pure pawn endgame you can determine exactly with the rule of Studenezki if two splited pawns can queen without help of the own king. >All knowledge "slows crafty down." However, at least for most of what I have >done to date, the trade-off was considered viable. IE the "smarts" more than >offset the loss of search speed/tactical acuity. In general, this is clear - that's why I the word added "only". BTW sometimes adding some knowledge leads to slightly smaller search trees and/or higher nps values. regards Rafael B. Andrist
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.