Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:36:38 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 10:58:30, blass uri wrote: >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 That is hard to do. I have 'plans' to do something about this, as it is too easy to get to a pawn-up endgame with queens still on (and no other pieces) which tends to lead to a draw with all the checks... The fewer the pawns, the easier...
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.