Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:31:15 07/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2002 at 09:38:03, Rolf Tueschen wrote: very simple deep blue was known to give a big patzer score for a king which has open space with an opponent queen near it. You can get this out of several outputs from the games kasparov-deep blue in '97 too. It was scared to death for a king which was getting attacked by an opponent queen. In many cases that is with reason. A queen is a pretty strong piece when it works against opponent king! >On July 28, 2002 at 02:48:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On July 27, 2002 at 23:10:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>Oh that position, yeah there the Deep Blue search system >>which are focussed upon mate threats, they should >>work well there. >> >>Crafty is a bad compare here. >> >>>On July 27, 2002 at 19:57:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On July 27, 2002 at 09:02:13, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: >>>> >>>>what the hell do you talk about? >>> >>> >>>He is talking about the Nf6+ move crafty played against chessmaster in >>>the KKUP tournament a few years ago. Crafty saw a draw score after a 13-14 >>>ply search. Hsu sent me some brief output from Deep Blue Junior that showed >>>that in under 2 minutes, it saw our score as +2.5... Several moves into the >>>game Crafty failed high and finally agreed. DB Jr saw it very quickly while >>>everyone else is taking quite a long time compared to their two minutes. Note >>>that this was DB Jr model 1, not the 1997 version... >> >>r1b1r1k1/1q3ppp/ppn5/2bNp3/P4B2/5Q1P/BP3PP1/R2R2K1 w - - 2 19 >> >>DB jr is just as good as the 97 version, considering their parallel >>speedup extrapolation. >> >>>>I can show you a bunch of bad moves DBII made against kasparov >>>>which no other computer makes, but i don't see a single good >>>>move DB makes which todays software doesn't find. >> >>>This was simply an attempt to compare their tactics to ours. At least in >> >>To that of crafty of course ,which isn't doing many checks in qsearch >>nor extending mate threats a lot. nor extending singular stuff. >> >>in this case the system as they describe how they extend works great >>of course. I bet Brutus will find this easily too. >> >>BTW did Hsu give an output? >> >>because all the things i hear is always like: "he told me". >>I want to see outputs :) >> >>it could be true he just made a few moves and then got the score. >>i remember an analysis of it a few years ago. if you give a big patzer >>score for king safety you sure can get +2.xx there, > >I've read your argument at least for the second time, Vincent. Could you please >describe the logic behind it so that a non-programmer is able to follow you? >Second question, would you agree, that, if such "scorings" could be done >experimentally, then the known efforts to "prove" that something was doable in >DB2 just by showing that today's PC are also capable to do it, that this is at >least a weak experimental design? For me the logic of such proofs is false. Am I >right or wrong? > >Rolf Tueschen > > >> otherwise it's a >>pretty deep combi to see you win a piece on g6 using a pin of a pawn h4 h5. >> >>>this position, theirs is better. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>Sorry to return to this old post by Dr. Robert Hyatt, but I red it a little >>>>>late. >>>>>I know this is just one position, but I was wondering what conclusions could we >>>>>take from this test? >>>>>It seamed to me that current programs were a little slow in finding the winning >>>>>score (not the move). >>>>> >>>>>Any comments? >>>>> >>>>>Best regards, >>>>>Alvaro
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.