Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:12:49 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). > >Uri Crafty's eval _could_ be better in that position. But more likely, it is just _lucky_ there. It doesn't see anything other than getting the queen closer to the opponent's king, with the queen centralized pretty well. DB might have had other terms, or saw deeper and thought that the queen was needed for defense rather than on e3. lots of speculation of course... and only one piece of the data is available, that from Crafty.
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.