Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 16:40:47 01/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 19:29:31, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>No, the only reason you think DB has a bunch more evaluation is because Hyatt >It has nothing to do with Hyatt. Please try to construct better arguments in >the future. The reason I think DB has a better evaluation is that I've seen the >games, and analyzed them. Kasparov and other GMs have said that DB was clearly >superior to anything else they've seen. Of course it's superior, it searched 200M NPS. Searching has the property of "adding knowledge" to a program. How do you know that you were seeing evaluation function terms in those games, and not tactics that are so deep that they're hidden to humans? >>keeps saying that it does. But none of us has any proof that DB has more >>evaluation than CS Tal. And Hsu doesn't even think it has more evaluation, >>because his estimate translates to at least 20k NPS. >That was an estimate. He could have very well been way off, though it's not >that likely. Right. If anything, I suspect the estimate is high. Hsu made the estimate to compare the DB chip to general-purpose computers. The higher the estimate, the more impressive his work sounds. I'm not saying that Hsu is a liar, or misestimated on purpose, but I think it's unlikely that Hsu erred on the side of DB chips doing LESS work. >Against the current group of micro programs, which lack a great deal of the >knowledge DB has anyway, it probably didn't matter much. Against humans (GMs), >it would probably matter a lot more. They could exploit any holes uncovered by >an untuned evaluation much better than other programs. That's fine, but I don't see what it has to do with anything we've been taking about. -Tom
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.