Author: blass uri
Date: 07:58:30 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 10:05:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 17, 2000 at 14:01:00, blass uri wrote: > >>On January 17, 2000 at 12:55:37, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On January 17, 2000 at 06:32:48, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>When Deeper blue made his last move in game 2 it did not expect the right >>>>Qe3(see IBM logfiles). >>>> >>>>If I give crafty17.04 a long time it does expect the right Qe3. >>>> >>>>I know that no micro can find that Qe3 is a draw but some micro can at least >>>>understand that Qe3 is the best move for black when deeper blue could not >>>>understand it. >>>> >>>>Crafty is not the only micro that can expect Qe3. >>>> >>>>It increases the impression of most of the chess players that deeper blue was >>>>better in tactics but had not better positional understanding than the >>>>microcomputers. >>> >>>I was thinking about this last night. I'm not sure it is a positional thing. >>>My guess is that DB saw that Qe3 led to a long series of checks, but couldn't >>>find the quiet moves at that depth to find a draw. Since Qe3 doesn't lead to a >>>draw (I.e., DB couldn't see it.), then white can have more attacking chances at >>>black's king, because black's queen will be stuck on the other side of the >>>board. (In most of the PVs, DB thought Kasparov would trade queens.) >>>Of course this is just a guess, but it wouldn't seem completely inconsistent >>>with the way DB seemed to evaluate certain things. >> >>I see it as a positional thing. >>I think a good program should at least suspect that it is perpetual check. >> >>I think that if both sides have attacking chances it is illogical not to divide >>the evaluation by a number bigger than 1 because it is clear that the position >>is unclear and if you cannot do it clear by search then the best evaluation is >>to admit that you are not sure by using smaller numbers for evaluation. >> >>I do not know if some of the programs that can expect Qe3 do it but it is clear >>that deeper blue's evaluation was illogical. >> >>Uri > > >I don't agree there. Computers have _always_ played "inhumanly". I can recall >hundreds of games (mostly crafty, but also Cray Blitz and even Deep Blue) where >a program will follow a line that appears to win quicker, but which leaves the >program dead lost if it makes _one_ mistake. Where a human would follow the >path of a sure (but longer) win, while leaving a lot more room for mistakes. I do not say that programs should never follow a line which leaves the program dead lost if it makes one mistake if they have a sure(but longer) win. I said that it should by the evaluation function see that both sides have attacks after Qe3 in game 2 so the evaluation should be closer to draw. 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.