Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:34:34 12/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1999 at 17:20:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Vincent: Listen _carefully_. It was _not_ Deep Blue 1. Deep Blue 1 did _not_ exist at that point in time. Either email Hsu or Campbell and ask, or check the tournament publicity stuff. It was _very_ clear. "Deep Blue Prototype". Or wait for Hsu's book and notice exactly _when_ the first DB 1 chips were delivered to them. Hint: It was _way_ after Hong Kong. You are talking about the original chiptest/deep thought chess processor. DB prototype used the new software search that would be used in Deep Blue. But it used old chess processors with lots of known bugs. This is all public knowledge. It is all old news. Forget about "Deep Blue 1 in Hong Kong" It didn't happen. > >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. And what is the purpose for funking up the eval? And what is the purpose for comparing to a machine that hasn't played chess since Hong Kong? DB1 and 2 are _far_ different. Trying to extrapolate based on things Deep Thought did is about as useful as tryint to extrapolate based on things Crafty did 4 years ago. It is _nothing_ at all like it was back then. Neither is DB1 or DB2 anything like deep thought in many respects... > >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.