Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 03:43:44 07/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2002 at 02:39:45, Uri Blass wrote: >It is possible that they could get 2 productive changes: > >1)Add null move pruning >2)Not use the singular extensions. > >It is possible that 2 is not productive without 1 and >if they did not start by testing 2, they got the wrong conclusions. > >Did somebody try to test crafty with their algorithm >(no null move pruning and singular extensions)? > >I guess that it is going to be clearly weaker than >the Crafty of today at 120/40 time control. > >Uri I think IBM was playing it safe. They could have taken more chances, adding nullmove probably would have made it even stronger, but imagine the embarrasment for them if it failed to see a simple combination like a mate in 1 :) Why risk making a fool of yourself before the eyes of the world, DBII was already impressing people with its tactics and search depths. In the end it was all about marketing, so they took no chances. Today things would be done differently, or else you simply risk being beaten by a micro, which is also very embarrasing :) -S.
This page took 0.01 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.