Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:53:11 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2002 at 19:35:03, Geo Disher wrote: >On July 21, 2002 at 22:11:41, Geo Disher wrote: > >>On July 21, 2002 at 07:32:32, Geo Disher wrote: >> >>>On July 19, 2002 at 15:32:05, Geo Disher wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>>So what? Their scores didn't show any such thing. The log showed that >>>>>they liked Qb6 less each time they drove the search one ply deeper, until >>>>>it got so low that axb5 had a higher score and they went with that. >>>>> >>>>OK it appears that no one has actually shown a current micro program that >>>>evaluates axb5 over Qb6 (at least with twicking some settings). I am going to >>>>run my little 2.4ghz until it does (I hope). It is currently very close using >>>>Fritz 6. It currently shows .97 for axb5 and 1.0 for Qb6. It has been going >>>>for only a few hours now and just like you said Blue did, the two evals are >>>>getting closer and closer the longer it thinks. I know people have done this >>>>before but maybe I can run this longer than some in the past using a faster >>>>computer and get a different result. >>> >>>OK after 56 hours the evals are exactly the same .88 for axb5 and Qb6. >>>Hopefully in another few days axb5 will surpass Qb6. >> >>Well looks like I will have to start my test over again. My wife decided to use >>the computer to create a birthday card. :(. > >I am running Fritz 6 again and I am at about 40 hours in the evaluation. If you >remember it took till about 56 hours for me to reach equal evals for Qb and >axb5. Hopefully in another day I will see this happen again. > >I have read a lot of post about what is proved by doing this. Dr Hyatt has >explained the same thing over and over again and it seems so simple that I don’t >understand how it can be so confusing to some. This is a very common happening. In science (BTW this was already known to the ancient Greeks) you get answers on your questions. But with each answer you'll have new questions. So in general you can say that if you go deeper problems increase instead of decreasing. The main reason for the long debate between me and Dr. Hyatt is exactly because I see problems of several levels at the time while Bob is the experienced practitioner, trying to be faithful to the habits created in the 60s. But at that time nobody took the chess of the machines for serious. Today when CC is in tournaments and show events with super GM the rules must be reformed a bit. But try to convince an old representative. He will always answer that this worked for so many years without failures... Hope this helps. Rolf Tueschen But just so everyone is clear >all this test is showing is that another chess computer can come up with the >same move that DB did given enough time. > >The reason I am doing this test is because Gary implied (don’t know his exact >words) that he did not think a chess computer could come up with axb5. > >On a different topic, Fritz 6 is only showing 1 or 2 plies of its best two lines >of play. Does anyone know how to make it show more detailed information about >its best line of play.
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.