Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:44:52 10/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 1999 at 10:58:28, blass uri wrote:
>On October 15, 1999 at 01:15:17, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure what all the crap about not being creative is. The Deep Thought
>>people said for years that massive extensions were the way to go. That was
>>fairly creative, seeing as almost all of the micro people disagreed vehemently
>>("doesn't work", "it's garbage", "they need it because they have no eval", etc.)
>
>I am surprised to read that almost all of the micro people disagreed.
they disagreed with 'singular extensions'. Until they had the horsepower to
try them. Lang was the first, so far as I know. Then came Wchess and a host
of others using variants of this idea.
things are always "no good" if you can't figure out how to use 'em. Or if you
happen to not have enough horsepower to use 'em. Then a few years later it is
amazing how smart Hsu and group were... :)
>
>It is clear to everyone who is interested in chess that there are many positions
>in chess when extensions are important and that you cannot solve practically
>everything by evaluation.
>
>Everyone who analyze studies and hard combinations like the nolot test knows
>that you must do massive extensions to solve them.
>
>I read in the book of David levy (How computers play chess) that Botvinik's
>publications described how his program Pioneer was able to solve an hard
>position by extensions with a tree of only 200 positions(page 67) so the idea to
>do massive extensions is clearly not an original idea of the deep thought
>people.
forget Botvinnik's program. It was 100% vaporware and outright fabrication.
most of his results were simply fake. See Hans Berliner's analysis of the last
paper Berliner published in the JICCA. It was 100% phoney.
>
>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.