Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:15:10 01/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2000 at 07:36:20, blass uri wrote:
>On January 22, 2000 at 00:14:26, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>based on how little it was actually tested, and how conservative they were
>>in using the new hardware, I would think that with static hardware, they could
>>make it better every year for 5 years with no trouble at all..
>
>I do not believe that their evaluation was better than the evaluation of the
>commercial programs.
>
>A complex evaluation can be worse than a simple evaluation if you do not use a
>lot of time for testing.
>
>I believe that doing a big evaluation without enough testing is not a good idea.
>They probably had a lot of mistakes in the evaluation so the fact it was more
>complex does not prove that it was better.
>
>Uri
That is the whole point. On the one hand I read insistently that DB has more
knowledge _by far_ than any program around; yet on the other hand, there is the
matter of some of its play that seems to contradict this. One could conclude
like many, that this was all a lie, or that other factors were involved. Having
no reason to doubt the first, I have to seek an alternative explanation. Such a
great amount of knowledge would require a huge amount of testing and adjusting,
as a figure of say ten times (or whatever) will require an exponential amount of
balancing, since each extra item can effect each and every other item involved
in judging and finding moves. Even if Hsu had received the final chips months in
advance (which is what I based my theory on), this would still seem to be too
little.
Albert Silver
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.