Author: David Blackman
Date: 03:15:27 01/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2000 at 15:08:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >But they don't take the time to find out which pieces are attacking squares >around the king "through" another piece. IE a bishop at b2 attacking g7, but >only if the Nc3 moves. Or only if the pawn on d4 or e5 moves. That gets very >expensive computationally. DB gets it for nothing. I think it would slow me >down by a factor of 100 or more, depending on how far I wanted to take it... Actually, Desperado gets most of the interesting cases of this one, and it doesn't take much time and there aren't any fancy data structures involved. Desperado is not a particularly smart program. It's just lost three in a row against Crafty. But NPS reported by the two programs were about the same. Of course, Desperado is certainly missing a lot of other factors that Deep Blue had. Even the pawn structure code misses a lot of important stuff. I wonder if Diep might be a good approximation to Deep Blue done on normal PC hardware? Vincent is probably a better chess player than anyone in the core Deep Blue team, although he doesn't have the assistance of several GMs to help him tune the eval. And from the vague suggestions from both camps it sounds like the complexities of the two evals are more or less similar. From Diep's results it seems to be perhaps a bit weaker than the best PC programs, but still very competitive. Sometimes the extra knowledge brings a win, other times the reduced search depth brings a tactical loss. Maybe that is how the Deep Blue program would go if rewritten for the PC.
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.