Author: Alvaro Polo
Date: 10:51:06 01/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2000 at 13:38:21, blass uri wrote: >On January 21, 2000 at 11:44:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 21, 2000 at 09:51:26, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On January 21, 2000 at 09:33:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>I don't think there is any doubt. But it will likely be at _least_ another >>>>10 years and probably longer. >>> >>>You said earlier that the DB team discovered glaring holes in the evaluation >>>functions of PC programs. Glaring enough that a seriously retarded version of DB >>>could still whomp on them. >>> >>>So my question is, why doesn't FHH make a PC program with this ueber-function? >>>It wouldn't be much work for him, and the cost is zero. Okay, it would run >>>significantly slower in software than it does in hardware, but if the function >>>is THAT much better, it would still be a win. He could throw in null move and >>>probably achieve partiy. >> >>It would run so much slower it would get killed tactically. Remember that their >>king safety included not just pawns around the king, but which pieces are >>attacking what squares, from long range as well as close range. Which pieces >>are attacking squares close to the king, etc. That takes a good bit of >>computing to discover. >> >>Hsu mentioned that 'king safety' was _the_ issue in most of the games. As I >>look at other micro games (ie fritz 6 in the Israeli league game posted today) >>it is easy to see why a program that understands square control around the enemy >>king would have an easy time... > >I think that the problem of fritz6 was that it did not see deep enough. >The GM simply outsearched fritz. > >If Fritz was 1000 times faster it would not fall into the trap. > >It is not clear to me that the evaluation function of deeper blue was a real >advantage relative to crafty's evaluation(deeper blue failed to expect Qe3 in >the game that kasparov resigned so there are cases when crafty's evaluation is >better and if deeper blue could see one or two more plies thanks to using >simpler evaluation than it is another advantage). If I have understood correctly DB evaluation was done in hardware and was essentially "free", meaning that if replaced by a simpler evaluation the number of cycles wouldn't be reduced and it wouldn't search any faster because of this. Alvaro > >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.