Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:53:40 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 23:14:51, martin fierz wrote: But this is ?? BLUNDER moves. The most horrible to make. Moves that lose a game directly. I don't know a single engine that makes such moves anymore. Crafty finds 3 instantly bad and one it to my amazement doesn't find. Says something about how bad crafty is (but if you look to its primitif evaluation you see why). Even then it solves 3 out of 4 positions. So it prevents 3 clear losses there. I concluded the same as Uri. The level was so bad in these days that you won't find any good move like the programs play now. Take the rxc4 sacrafice of junior. We can explain why it plays it, but doesn't take away that it is a real good move. If you look to the 1997 match dbii - kasparov you won't find many real good moves. The majority is found within a second and kept by the current software generation. Some others which Seirawan comments with '!' do not deserve a !, because they are too simple to find. Like 2 ply moves which a very old genius version (called differently) from around 1986 at my pc also finds under DOS instantly Best regards, Vincent >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.