Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:32:09 04/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2002 at 09:34:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 10, 2002 at 23:18:42, K. Burcham wrote: > >> >>it is one thing to be able to take each move of game two and game six, and find >>at least one program that will play the Deep Blue move. >> >>it is another to find a bad move that Deep Blue played, and find a program today >>that will avoid this move and play a better move, and watch the eval climb. >> >>what if we all agreed that one certain position that Deep Blue played >>was a bad move because_______? >> >>what if we find a program today that does not play this same bad move? >> >>what if we find a program that will play a better move and we can watch eval >>climb after this move? >> >>I know Robert, that in this case you could answer "well if a frog had wings, >>etc". >> >>but i assure you these are honest questions. >>what if the above did happen, what could we conclude? >>kburcham > > >The problem is that a game is game... not a series of moves. If you could >prove that program "X" plays every move in a DB game except move N, and then >you could prove that move N was better beyond any doubt, then you just proved >that in _that_ position (only) program X appears to know a bit more. I don't >think you will ever find a tactical move that program X can find that DB didn't, >so you are going to be looking at positional stuff only. And proving that >one positional move is better than another is a _very_ non-trivial thing to >do... The question is how to define tactical move. I suspect that all the top programs can find Kh1 instead Kf1 in game 2 after enough time and it seems that Kh1 is the winning move when Kf1 is a draw. You can say that they find it for positional reasons but it does not change the fact that they play the better 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.