Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:18:08 11/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 1998 at 03:42:58, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 11, 1998 at 19:55:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 11, 1998 at 07:09:43, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On November 10, 1998 at 08:16:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>>this is dead wrong. It overlooked a draw in game two that *kasparov* also >>>>overlooked. But when it played Be4 rather than Qb6, the move that Kasparov >>>>insisted won a pawn, it turns out that DB had seen a *very* deep draw there, >>>>one that Kasparov also overlooked. >>>> >>> >>>Don't know where this interesting but false piece of information comes from. >>>Deep Blue evaluated 37.Qb6 as +32 so it didn't see a draw, if there is indeed >>>one to see here. >>> >>>Amir >> >>Is this not the move where it chose to go into "panic time" because the eval >>kept dropping iteration by iteration, and it changed to Be4 at the last minute? >> > >That was move 36 (axb5). > >I posted the printout information here once. It contains answers to all these >questions. I assume you didn't save it. Since you comment on this matter often, >and with an air of authority, aren't you at all interested in the only data ever >published on this ? > > >>There is definitely a draw to be found... just let Junior search... for a day or >>so. You'll get 0.00 eventually. I did... And I assume they did as well to >>change to something else... > >Don't know, but if DB didn't see a draw, what does this matter ? > >I have an email from F.Friedel from May 97 saying he ran this on Fritz 4.01 to >ply 17 and got +0.28. > >Amir You keep saying that... so I'm going to respond in terms you can both understand *and* remember so we don't have to do this again... DB was searching Qb6... the score kept dropping. Until the last iteration where it changed to Be4. Now how could it do that without saying anything until the "reconstructing..." output? Exactly like I explained it the last time you brought this implied accusation up... like this: In early versions of Cray Blitz, when I started a new iteration, and the previous best move failed low (dropped to 0.00) I simply kept searching... and with no "warning" it would display and play a completely different move, because the fail low would put it into "extended-time mode" and it would try root move 2, then 3 until either it tried them all and then dropped the lower bound and restarted the search (telling me when it did this) or it would find a new best move, and it might take an extended time to find this... so all I would see is "time limit extended because of fail low at root" (I added this so I knew what was going on)... followed by a brand new move out of the blue, when it finally found a move that produced a score above alpha. Now for the life of me I don't see why you keep making ths implication that something went wrong... I've pointed out several times that this is not an unusual thing with any program. Many of us make our output more informative but there is *no* mandated requirement to do so. Their output has *always* been confusing to me, from the * for captures, to the long-form Be4*d5 type of move, etc... But I certainly don't see how we go from there to "something odd happened that they *must* explain to prove it wasn't human intervention." That's baloney. It's always been baloney. It still is baloney. It will always be baloney... It's perfectly understandable... it is only mysterious if you want it to be so.
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.