Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:54:39 12/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1999 at 16:32:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 24, 1999 at 15:53:49, blass uri wrote: > >>On December 23, 1999 at 19:24:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >><snipped> >>>Bob i've got proof of bad working of singular extensions. >> >>I think it is possible that they had a rule of not extending >>wasting tempo moves so deep thought could not see when that 18.Rg1 is >>losing when it played 16.c4 because black waste tempo in the line Qh4-h3 Rg1 >>Qxh2+. >> >>It is also possible that they did not extend this line because they did not >>extend lines that give the queen for a pawn. >> >>You need to see 14 plies from the move 16.c4 without extensions to find >>22...Qxh5# > >Don't forget check extensions in qsearch and exending on check, >apart from that singular extensions. Why are you still stuck on the deep thought hardware problems? DB 1 and DB 2 were _far_ different. DT didn't do nor understand checks/mates in the q-search. It didn't understand repetitions in the hardware either. DB 2 fixed both of these problems as well as added an order of magnitude more gates for the evaluation. What is the purpose of trying to find errors in late 1980's hardware and then from that extrapolate things about DB2? They have very little in common. > >That all rips plies from it. apart from that you don't need to >see all lines to already not play c4. > >If evaluation of Deep Blue I was really that bad, then it still should >see all this tactical. If it didn't , then obviously its fullwidth >search with singular extensions and some other crap didn't work for >this obvious position. That was _not_ deep blue. It was deep thought hardware. This has been well-documented for several years now. It was called (at one point) deep blue prototype. With the note that "this is the DB software search but using the original deep thought hardware." > >It clearly refutes the idea that singular extensions solve the game. >I see it very simple. A professional hardware designer makes a >special chip called deep thought, deep blue, deep blue II. > >An incredible achievement on its own. > >Then he's inventing singular extensions. >Though all commercial programmers who >dedicate fulltime to their program and many other researchers >can't get it to work, or make it work in such a way that it only >gives them sometimes in tacitcal position 1 or 2 ply more, >this hardware designer, can? I got it to work. Bruce got it to work. Lang got it to work. Kittinger got it to work. > >And apart from this claim that it's seeing the right plies, >but then it falls into an easy joke? not the same hardware _at all_... > >I'll put now evaluation off from DIEP (not smart in itself, but i'll >just let it do material) and see how many plies after c4 it sees >serious trouble, besides seeing whether it plans c4 at all. > >>I do not think that the reason of not seeing this tactics was singular >>extensions because I believe that with singular extensions and some check >>extensions it is possible to see that 16.c4 is bad. >> >>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.