Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:09:24 01/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2000 at 10:28:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 22, 2000 at 06:01:51, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On January 21, 2000 at 22:54:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 21, 2000 at 17:22:08, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>On January 21, 2000 at 15:08:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 21, 2000 at 13:56:40, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 21, 2000 at 11:44:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>I realize that it takes a good bit of computing to discover. But I doubt it >>>>>>takes so much that it's prohibitive. There are very successful micro programs >>>>>>with extremely expensive evaluation functions, e.g., MChess and the King, and to >>>>>>a lesser extent, HIARCS and Zarkov. These programs all reportedly have terms >>>>>>similar to the ones you describe. I seriously doubt that the DB evaluation >>>>>>function is an order of magnitude more complex than, say, MChess's... >>>>>> >>>>>>-Tom >>>>> >>>> >>>>Add Junior to the above list. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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... >>>>> >>>>>That might make me more aware of king attacks, but it would hide many plies >>>>>worth of tactics since a factor of 100 is over 4 plies. Only a wild guess >>>>>of course on the factor of 100, but since the eval is done at every node in >>>>>the q-search, this is probably within an order of magnitude or two of the >>>>>real answer. >>>>> >>>>>I can guarantee you it is more complex than the above evaluations. And I don't >>>>>even know all the things they evaluate. One new idea mentioned in Hsu's book >>>>>was the concept of "a file that can potentially become open" so that you put >>>>>rooks on that file, even though you can't see exactly how you are going to open >>>>>it within the 15 plies + extensions they were searching. "Potentially open" >>>>>takes a lot of analysis on the static pawn structure. I do some of this >>>>>pawn structure analysis myself, and even with pawn hashing it slowed me down >>>>>significantly when I added it a year+ ago to better handle/detect blocked >>>>>positions. >>>>> >>>>>Remember that they claimed about 8,000 static evaluation weights in their >>>>>code, this reported by someone that went to a DB talk by Murray Campbell. >>>>>8000 sounds like a big number... >>>> >>>>It's big, but what does it really mean ? Some of it must have been piece-square >>>>tables for some features that were downloaded from the hosts, and that's >>>>hundreds of entries per feature. >>>> >>>>Besides, where is all this sophistication showing up in the DB & DBjr games ? >>>>Forget the numbers, whatever they mean. Show us the positions & moves. >>>> >>>>Amir >>> >>> >>>It would seem that the _results_ would speak for themselves. Who else has >>>produced results like theirs? >> >>There is no difference between DB and DBjr in this aspect, and DBjr was >>according to its games an unremarkable machine with unremarkable results. >> >>Amir > > >Which GM players beat DB Jr in a match? They played _many_ such matches at >conferences all over the world. I _never_ saw it lose a game in the three >matches I saw it play against GM players. One against Byrne. The others >I didn't really know (IE I wouldn't recognize Dlugy if I bumped into him, >although we have chatted a lot on ICC). > >And you say "no difference between DB and DBJr" which I agree with. But _I_ >remember a significant match DB won (the last match it played.) I would not >call that "unremarkable"... Until everybody can do it... Why haven't I seen these matches published? Were they played at 40/2, or were they 30 0 matches, or what? bruce
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.