Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:33:43 01/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 15:49:17, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On January 23, 2000 at 15:22:58, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On January 23, 2000 at 14:27:02, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>Life doesn't always work this way. You can make the clearest argument in the >>>world and still not "win." The person you are arguing with can ignore your >>>points, confuse the issue, change the topic, etc. >>> >>>Here's my original question, which started this whole argument: if FHH knows how >>>to make such a terrific evaluation function, why doesn't he put one in a PC >>>program and make a lot of money from it? >> >>(I think :-) I've stayed out of this thread for a while, but now that it's >>refocusing, I'll stick in my opinion (based on the recent correspodence that can >>be found at TWIC). >> >>Hsu does not care. He is done. DB won a match. He and GK's agent did not >>come to terms on a new match. He will go and do something else for a change. >> >>Dave > >Yeah, this is the feeling that I get, too. > >I just have to wonder why he doesn't write up a description of DB's eval >function. If it lives up to the hype, then it would be a big step forward in >computer chess. > >-Tom We are going to (soon) have access to at least some of DT's evaluation. One of the old team members wrote an automated tool to tune the thing. He has asked for, and been given permission to make this all public, including weights and all. It will be on my ftp site before long. Note that this is deep thought stuff, not deep blue. But it will represent a step forward in the technical details we know about even that ancient box...
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.