Author: Amir Ban
Date: 07:24:06 11/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 1998 at 08:18:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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." > What the hell are you talking about here ? Who's been talking about this subject at all ? You asked if this is the m >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.