Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:34:04 07/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2002 at 14:31:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Pretty funny. "was known to give". Exactly how many games did you base that on??? :) > >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.