Author: martin fierz
Date: 18:38:57 08/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2002 at 13:13:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 10, 2002 at 12:30:26, martin fierz wrote: > >>On August 09, 2002 at 06:11:01, David Dory wrote: >> >>>On August 08, 2002 at 16:43:55, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>i think schaeffer wrote something about how unlikely it was that an EGTB error >>>>would have turned up in his match against tinsley (they had bugs in 1992, but >>>>they thought they had none in 1996 - but they had some there, too). well, it >>>>seems it turned up here! we're not 100% certain yet, there's another guy in >>>>england using schaeffers database, if he also gets that error with his lookup >>>>code it's definitely the chinook database. >>>> >>>>aloha >>>> martin >>> >>>Those damn EGTB's have been hexed for Jonathan. He mentions in his book "One >>>Jump Ahead", how they found errors in them, again and again. Much to team >>>Chinook's dismay. >>> >>>I thought after the last EGTB errors that every one of the files had been >>>"proofed", 100% accurate. Very interesting, if the error is in Chinook's files. >> >>schaeffer sent me an email saying the EGTB was correct. which leaves a corrupt >>file on ed's harddisk as one possible cause, or an error in his access code as >>the other possibility for what happened. we don't know yet and until he has a >>chance of checking this back home, i can't tell you what really happened. >> >> >>>After running thru a game on your web site, I'm POSITIVE I won't be playing >>>checkers with you guys! Wow! Your programs are GOOD! >>> >>>Great web site, and best wishes for a great tournament, Martin. >>> >>>Dave >> >>thanks :-) >> >>aloha >> martin > >I suspect that this checker 8*8 game is practically solved and programs only >need hardware that is slightly faster to get 100% draws instead of more than 90% >draws. i think you suspect wrong. the reason for the high number of draws is that we have close-to-perfect opening books, which take our programs until positions where they will play perfectly thanks to the 8-piece EGTB. without those books, there would have been many more decisive games - even on much faster hardware. >I am going to say the same about chess if I see more than 90% draws but it does >not seem to happen to chess in the near future. i agree, since in chess there is no equivalent to the 8-piece db for checkers. >I wonder if there are positions from practical checkers games when programs >cannot find the right move after an hour of search. lots of them! i will check how long it takes for my program to avoid the two losses it had here, but these positions were so deep, i do not think it will find the right move with days of search time. my opponents had those two games in book... aloha martin >Uri
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.