Author: blass uri
Date: 08:36:44 11/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 1998 at 09:37:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 22, 1998 at 11:49:54, blass uri wrote: > >> >>I did not ask for all the tree but only the tree up to the point that my >>programs can see by search of 3 minutes that black has at least 1 pawn >>advantage. >> >>This is clearly less positions >>because if in the leaves it is -2.xx then Junior can see some moves before the >>leaves that it is -1.xx > > >ok... rather than 10 million pages, it might only be 1 million pages. How >would we get those to you? :) > >what you are overlooking is the point that junior (and all the other programs) >look at a fat, shallow tree. IE how do you think a program like Crafty, doing >300K nodes per second, reaches 12 plies in the middlegame, while Deep Blue, >doing 1,000 times as many nodes per second, only reaches to 10-11 plies in the >middlegame? Because *they* are searching 10 times deeper than I am on most >moves, thru their "singular extensions" (and other extensions). We've already >seen that in the Deep Blue vs Kasparov game two, Dark Thought and Ferret have >searched axb5/Qb6 to depth 20 or 21 without seeing anything to cause it to fail >low, yet we know deep blue did. At 1/2 that depth. So it might take a program >like junior *fifty* plies to find what is going on there for all I know at >present. And if I could somehow give you a PV to get you down to the point >where Junior sees this, it would be so deep, probably, that it would be easy >to say "but this isn't the best move, white or black should try this instead. >And we end right back up at square zero. > >There are just some things they can see at 250M+ nodes per second that we won't >ever see... we are discussing about deepthought 2 game and not about deeper blue deepthought could not calculate 250M+ nodes per second > > > >> >>>I don't have their "output" for this move. As I said before, we sat at the >>>same table playing this game at the 88 ACM event (I think). I saw their output, >>>they saw ours. We both saw them fail high with a score > 2.0, while we were >>>reasonably happy with our score... until the roof fell in about 10 moves >>>later... and their eval didn't vary by much for the entire sequence... So I >>>can't give you their output, since I don't have it (they were using a laptop >>>to display their stuff). I can only tell you what actually happened in the >>>game. >> >>I believe that cray blitz lost because of a mistake that came after c5(maybe at >>move 32 because I do not see what is wrong with 32.Bg5) >>The fact that they have score>2.0 does not prove that they were right in the >>evaluation. > > >You'll have to believe what you want here. I *know* that a program that doesn't >do any selective forward pruning and which doesn't use null-move is *not* going >to make that kind of mistake, except perhaps for some sort of horizon effect on >the end where they can't actually take the piece due to a mate threat or some- >thing more serious. But that's not the case in this position... There can be a mistake in the evaluation function They may evaluate -2.xx something that top programs evaluates as -0.xx 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.