Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:59:41 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 17:16:41, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 20, 2002 at 15:26:36, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On August 20, 2002 at 13:41:13, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>(snip) >> >>>My impression based on looking in games of the thing that the thing did tactical >>>mistakes that the commercial of today do not do so my impression is different. >>> >>>If we look at the games they lost points or half points against humans then they >>>often did mistakes that the commercial of today do not do. >> >>This may be true, but is it not also true (and perhaps to a greater degree) that >>today's program's relative short sightedness due to lower NPS (and fewer eval >>terms per eval) also means they miss more correct moves, not necessarily >>mistakes that stand out if not done, just inferior. > >I know that hyatt claims that deep thought had more knowledge(I am not going to >discuss about deep blue but deep thought has not more knowledge than other >programs based on games and it lost some games because of king attacks). > >I simply do not believe that deep thought had more knowledge than Crafty or cray >blitz. I wouldn't say "more". I _would_ say "different" however. But DT was the first. There were two more generations to follow that were far better in terms of evaluation... > >It seems clear to me that Cray blitz was better thanks to searhing more nodes >and the algorithm of cray blitz was also superior(cray blitz used null move when >Deep thought did not use it). > >Uri That doesn't follow. It is obvious that it is possible to write a strong program _without_ null-move. As I said many times, selective extensions can match selective forward pruning perfectly...
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.