Author: martin fierz
Date: 20:14:51 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 20:36:02, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 20, 2002 at 20:27:18, martin fierz wrote: > >>this kind of test is fundamentally flawed by being 100% biased: you are >>presenting a selection of positions where deep blue failed, in every single one. >>of course, if a program of today solves a single one of these, be it by luck or >>by better knowledge, it already looks good. >>there are surely lots of positions where deep blue would look good in comparison >>to a micro, but they are not included. >> >>for any meaningful comparison, you should get a set of test positions and run DB >>and your micros over it. of course you can't do that now. but if you can't make >>a meaningful comparison, the next best thing is to make none at all. not to make >>a meaningless comparison :-) >> >>aloha >> martin > >The problem is that I know of no good moves that deep thought played and the >micro cannot find. > >If I find a lot of blunders that deep thought played when most of the top >programs of today avoid most of them when nobody can show me good moves of deep >thought that most programs need hours to find them,then it suggest that deep >thought was inferior relative to the programs of today. > >Uri 1) you did not find "a lot" of blunders. you posted about 4. 2) your conclusion is completely invalid. i could do the same with ANY of the top programs, and come to the conclusion that each single program is much worse than all others. one example that comes to mind is the loss of tiger against smirin, which probably all other top engines would have avoided, if i remember right. i bet you can find 3 more examples like that if you try, and then conclude that tiger is inferior relative to the top programs of today. which is obviously just wrong. aloha martin
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.