Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Behind Deep Blue: 3rd print with new Hsu afterword

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 09:14:42 05/08/04

Go up one level in this thread


On May 08, 2004 at 11:51:12, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On May 08, 2004 at 10:50:57, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>On May 08, 2004 at 07:18:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote:
>>
>>>On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You are absulutely right.
>>>>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a
>>>>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are
>>>>>>correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if
>>>>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting
>>>>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>:_(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>
>>>>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are
>>>>>wrong (never with any reasons of course).  Many other people have noticed your
>>>>>unending flood of negativity.  It is difficult to consider this post as anything
>>>>>other than a flame.  It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves
>>>>>and dispose of you.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree?
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point.
>>>>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the
>>>>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov.
>>>>
>>>>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it
>>>>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah.
>>>>
>>>>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10
>>>>questionmark moves from Junior!
>>>>
>>>>-S.
>>>
>>>I never thought this day would come - but I agree with Uri here. :-)
>>>
>>>Sports aren't about beautiful play. Sports are about winning. If someone is
>>>playing ugly, and winning, then it's your sense of aesthetics which needs to be
>>>reviewed.
>>>
>>>Computers have a long history of winning ugly. In the recent Fritz-Kasparov and
>>>Junior-Kasparov matches, the machines made many many more "mistakes" (according
>>>to human opinion) than Kasparov. But - if these mistakes aren't punished - are
>>>they really mistakes? Is it a mistake to leave Shaq wide open for three point
>>>shots? (Or send him to the line for "free" throws?) It's impossible to speak
>>>about objectivity here. You can only look at the results.
>>>
>>>Vas
>>
>>Let's take a look at some of the moves the annotator didn't like:
>>
>>[D]r2q1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2pbpn2/3p3b/8/1P1PPNPP/PBPN1PB1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 10
>>
>>Zappa plays the obvious 10 ...e5.  Deep Blue played 10 ...h6.  I won't call this
>>a bad move, but it's clearly a pass move.
>
>That isn't very convincing.  Did you look at _your_ PV?  move 4?  :)
>
>Order doesn't mean much to alpha/beta as it scores positions, not moves as they
>are played.
>
>First impression is that h6 and e5 transpose to the _same_ position...
>
>

I will accept that my 4 ply search plays pass moves some of the time :)  Zappa
uses pure R=3 now, and perhaps the evaluation isn't quite good enough for it.

anthony



This page took 0.01 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.