Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 14:28:08 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 17:20:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 17:00:43, martin fierz wrote: > >>On October 11, 2002 at 00:25:27, K. Burcham wrote: >> >>>My question is, separate from all of this technical discussion, do you have >>>several moves that you have studied with todays programs that you know these >>>programs cannot find? >> >>perhaps it's more about moves that deep blue did not find: like h4? in game 1, > > >I do not think that another move could change the result and >I do not think that deeper blue could play better. > >I did not read that deeper blue had fortress detection in it's evaluation. The game was drawn before h4 was played. We can't say whether DB would have done better in avoiding the drawing setup, however. >I do not say that it is a proof but only an evidence. > >The test against kramnik is biased because kramnik knows the specific weaknesses >of deep fritz when Kasparov did not know the specific weaknesses of deeper blue. In 1996, he didn't know the specific weaknesses of DB1. By the 6th game, it sure seemed like he had a good handle on them - he made DB look silly in that game. Does it look like he was able to find any real weaknesses in DB2? Maybe a little bit, but it wasn't enough for him to win.
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.