Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:05:17 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2000 at 16:57:05, Jeremiah Penery wrote: [snip] >>>It appears that the supercomputer data gives a higher score for almost every >>>position, which is strange. >>There are both higher and lower evals. > >If you look at the side-by-side comparison from your FTP site, you will see that >in almost every case, the supercomputer eval has a higher ce value. That's because the older PC analysis is wrong. These positions are all from frequently played chess opening positions. If they are really frequently played, the positions should be about even. Why would someone put themselves at a distinct disadvantage again and again and again? They would not -- those positions would not be played. Further, the database suggest often differed from the PC computed suggestion -- no matter which program produced it. The real benefit was simply too far away to see. It stands to reason that most of them really *are* about even and that deep enough analysis would see it. It appears that the new analysis is deep enough. Sometimes, the suggested move was right but the ce was wrong with the old stuff, and sometimes the move was just plain wrong. Once in a while, the old estimate was nearly correct. Once in a while it was even worse than imagined (or conceivably even the supercomputer is fooled by depth). [snip]
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.