Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:11:27 09/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2004 at 08:19:20, martin fierz wrote: >On September 15, 2004 at 12:18:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 15, 2004 at 10:32:53, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On September 15, 2004 at 09:53:53, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>Anyone know of some code somewhere that implements >>>>at least part (or all) of the originally described >>>>singular extension and/or any modifications to it that >>>>have proven worthwhile (if any)? >>>> >>>>I am curious what mediocre (or better) results people >>>>have gotten with singular extension. Originally Anantharaman >>>>hypothesized that it wouldn't be good at the slower >>>>speeds of most programs at the time and would require >>>>fast speeds to show effect. Has this proven true or >>>>false in the intervening 15 years? >>>> >>>>Is singular extension now generally discredited as a >>>>non-reproducible singularity in and of itself? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>> >>>>Stuart >>> >>>AFAIK, SE is 'interesting' in the sense that it does enable programs to solve >>>certain positions faster, but of course you pay a price. and again AFAIK, nobody >>>is really using it these days, because the price seems too high to pay. i.e. in >>>games it's no improvement. >>> >>>just because the deep blue team used SE doesn't mean it's any good. remember, >>>they also decided not to use null-move, which was an established concept by >>>then. >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >> >>Remember also that _others_ use/used SE. Cray Blitz did starting in 1993. >>Wchess (Kittinger used the PV-singular half of SE.) I suspect others did/do as >>well. IE we know that Ferret had an implementation of SE. > >of course others used SE. if deep blue had been using *anything*, others would >have tried it too. like everybody playing the kings indian after kasparov did... Not everybody I did not play the kings indian after kasparov and I do not think that most programmers think that deep thought was stronger because of better algorithm. Deep Thought did many tactical mistakes that today programs have no problem to avoid. Some examples: example 1: [D]r2qkbnr/pp2pppp/8/3P4/2BQ4/2N1Bb2/PP3P1P/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 12 Deep thought played Qd6 against kasparov in 1989 when a6 was better. Example 2: [D]6k1/1p4p1/p2n2r1/3P1p1p/3QBPq1/4P1P1/PP5P/1R4K1 w - f6 0 35 Deep thought played Bd3 instead of Bg2 against Bonsch(1991) Example 3: Later in the same game [D]6k1/1p4p1/p5r1/3P1p2/3QnPqp/3BP1P1/PP4KP/1R6 w - - 0 37 Deep thought played Qc4 and d6 is needed. Example 4: [D]r1r3k1/2qn1p1p/p2p2pb/3Rp3/pQP1P3/1P3P2/5BPP/4KB1R w K - 0 21 Deep thought played 21.Qxd6 Deep thought is already in trouble but 21.Qxa4 is the best chance(Deep thought blundered earlier but I consider only blunders that can be considered as tactical mistakes. Example 5: Later in the same game After 21.Qxd6 Qb7 deep thought blundered and played 22.bxa4 and a move like 22.Be2 is better inspite of losing a pawn after 22...axb3 23.0-0 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.