Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:20:54 12/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1999 at 16:54:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. This was hong kong: deep blue 1. Even deep thought should have seen of course. Put crafty to fullwidth and see how little plies it needs to see c4 is very bad. Just give a big bonus to not having a pawn on c2 or c3. See my previous post. We talk about Deep Blue a few months before it plays Kasparov. This is not an evaluation issue only. My eval sees it 1 ply sooner than a simplistic piece square table program. The piece square table version of DIEP needs only 9 plies to see this. I don't DOUBT that extending all checks sees it even sooner. >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.