Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:37:09 10/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2002 at 14:05:48, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On October 20, 2002 at 12:12:26, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 20, 2002 at 11:29:40, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On October 20, 2002 at 11:20:55, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 20, 2002 at 11:00:42, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 20, 2002 at 03:41:56, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 19, 2002 at 21:44:49, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I have just finished the book by Feng-Hsiung Hsu. In just a shot, from after >>>>>>>lunch to this time, meal time. Very interesting. You cannot stop he reading. >>>>>>>First big impression: if this guy and his team had worked just one year more on >>>>>>>Deep Blue, Garry has been crushed to ashes, to atoms. Yes, because once and >>>>>>>again Deep Blue appears as an uncomplete device full of bugs and problems, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I am surprised that after this people still believe that it's evaluation was >>>>>>better than the evaluation of Deep Fritz of today. >>>>> >>>>>I'm surprised people still think it's evaluation was worse than Fritz of today. >>>>>But it doesn't matter - I think DB will never play again (stupid IBM), so >>>>>neither side can EVER win the argument. >>>> >>>>The main point is the following: >>>>"Deep Blue appears as an uncomplete device full of bugs and problems" >>> >>>They did have a lot of bugs over the course of the development, but what does >>>that have to do with the quality of the evaluation? >>> >>>>I do not believe that something that is full of bugs and problems can have >>>>better evaluation than Deep Fritz that was tested more seriously. >>> >>>Almost all of the 'bugs' were not in the evaluation. >> >>I understood from the discussion that they discovered bugs including bugs in the >>evaluation in games 1 and 2 of the match against kasparov and fixed them for the >>rest of the match. > >There was an evaluation feature on the hardware that was disabled in the first >game, which caused DB to think the queen trade was good. I'm not sure it >affected the second game, but it's possible. > >>Maybe I undertsood wrong and I did not read Hsu's book. >>I do not want to support Hsu after he left computer chess. >> >>I think to buy it only if Hsu returns to computer chess. >> >>> >>>Should I say Fritz has big evaluation 'bugs' because it completely misevaluates >>>many positions? Should that be cause to say Fritz has worse evaluation than >>>some other program(s)? >> >>No >>It is different. >> >>Fritz may evaluate wrong something because of lack of knowledge but >>I believe that the demage from wrong knowledge is often bigger than the demage >>from lack of knowledge. > >Slightly untuned knowledge is not 'wrong knowledge'. > >For example, if you tell the program that advancing pawns is good in the >endgame, it will play better in most cases where that comes up, even if it is >sometimes wrong due to poor tuning. Remember, DB evaluation was not completely >untuned or untested. Joel Benjamin played a lot of testing games - when he >found a position the machine played badly, they fixed it. They also had the >automatic evaluation tuner, which tuned the evaluation based on short searches >to more closely match GM analysis. > >Would you rather have a program with no king safety (no knowledge), or a program >that over-evaluates it (untuned knowledge)? It is not clear I think that a program with no king safety may be also better. The question is what is the size of the mistake in the evaluation. I agree that slightly untuned is better than nothing but the question is if deeper blue was only slightly untuned. Uri
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.