Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:54:45 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2000 at 16:21:10, Michel Langeveld wrote: >Hello Dann, > >This data is beautifull!!! And much more conform theory than CAP is. >> I am awestruck. Most of the positions were ones which needed attention. << >I checked some rows and Crafty seems to agree after a while with most of the >moves I tried after a while.... > >Are the rows still analysed with Crafty?? >> The rows are analyzed by various versions of Crafty, Hiarcs, or Rebel. << >And I'm still curious how many plies analysis we are talking about. You said in >another post that is was better than PC, but how for average... 20 ply? 25 ply >30 ply....??? Here it is difficult to put a number. After a certain period of time, the program uses special extensions. >It's a pity that not all the CAP data is like this... What cap data do we get if >we are minimaxing throw the CAP data??? More like the supercomputer's data or >still not (maybe I program this soon) >> I think it would be marvelous. Especially if the program can understand depth measures. << >I'm also a little bit disappointed because the supercomputer is already making >some CAP-data better, but far for every CAP-data is processed. I would have >liked having 2 milion rows processed in the quality we have now than having 211 >EPD's processed with better answers on a supercomputer.... >> This is just a beginning. The supercomputer can produce a prodigious amount of data. This data is from a "warm-up" test. << >Maybe the supercomputer can process more successors of the positions we don't >have yet what means if we have for example this position > >1. e4 +0.23 9 ply > >and we have also >1. e4 e5 -0.22 9 ply >1. e4 e6 -0.21 9 ply >1. e4 d5 -0.20 9 ply >1. e4 d6 -0.19 9 ply > >The super computer could process the missing successors: >1. e4 a6 -0.30 9 ply >1. e4 a5 -0.35 9 ply >1. e4 b6 -0.29 9 ply >1. e4 b5 -0.28 9 ply >1. e4 c6 -0.27 9 ply >1. e4 c5 -0.27 9 ply >1. e4 f6 -0.27 9 ply >1. e4 f5 -0.27 9 ply >1. e4 g6 -0.28 9 ply >1. e4 g5 -0.29 9 ply >1. e4 h6 -0.35 9 ply >1. e4 h5 -0.30 9 ply > >So we can say for sure >position (1. e4) = >1. e4 d6 +0.19 10 ply >> I would much rather spend the time on frequently played positions we have not looked at. Even better, moves that the computer suggests move 'x', but theory or frequency of play by experts suggests move 'y'. If nobody plays it, or the computer already agrees, who cares? << >But still many thanks for the good results!!!!!!! >> No one is more thankful than I. Three cheers for "Super Secret" -- our invisible benefactor. <<
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.