Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 13:59:54 10/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2002 at 15:55:32, Uri Blass wrote: >Deep blue did not see Qe3 in the main line based on the logfiles of IBM. >A lot of programs of today can see it with no problem. > >Some programs can even see the move Kh1 instead of Kf1 of Deep blue(I did not >check the last deep Fritz but previous Deep Fritz is one of them). > >It is not a proof that deep blue is weaker but it is an evidence that Deep >blue's evaluation is inferior. > >Good evaluation is not about knowing the truth(that you cannot know) but about >giving a better estimate and it seems that the top programs of today get better >decisions based on positional reasons. In Hsu's book, there is a large section about the 1997 match, going through game-by-game. It's very surprising how many evaluation bugs they found, and there's no doubt there were many more. The full DB2 never played a serious game before the 1997 match, either, so it's inevitable that things weren't tuned to the best possible accuracy. It's hard to compare something like that to a commercial program of today, which plays thousands of testing games and the programmers have as long as they want to tune each parameter. DB2 only played 6 games in its lifetime. To compare its positional strength to anything based on those games is meaningless. Or if you really want, I can easily find 6 games where some commercial program was completely clueless positionally. :)
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.