Author: blass uri
Date: 01:06:58 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 22:56:04, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 23, 2000 at 03:35:35, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On January 23, 2000 at 02:51:55, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>The results can be disregarded on these grounds of course, but it's also true >>>that the results, as reported, can be dismissed as being in contradiction to the >>>DB/DT public record, and to common sense in general. >> >>Here are some ideas about what might have happened in those games: >> >>1) DB Jr may have beaten those programs purely through eval function >>superiority. >> >>2) It may have won because of superior search. >> >>3) There may have been a poor comparison between node rates, resulting in DB Jr >>having a massive hardware advantage. >> >>4) The whole thing may be ficticious. >> >>5) Random chance. >> >>6) Something I haven't thought of yet. >> >>Bob may go nuts because I included #4. I don't believe that #4 is true, but >>someone can always claim that it is, and there is no obvious evidence that can >>be used to refute this claim, which disadvantages us who want to understand this >>rather than argue religion and conspiracies all day. >> >>#1 is what we are expected to believe, I thought that is what this test was >>supposed to measure. I have a very hard time with this one. I don't believe >>there are any terms that in and of themselves would result in such a lopsided >>match. I don't believe that I could set up my program to search exactly a >>hundred million nodes per search, and play it against the best eval function I >>could possibly write, also searching a hundred million nodes per search, and >>score 38-2. > > >I totally agree with you here. > > > >>Could I be convinced that #1 is true? You bet! Will I accept that #1 is true >>based upon faith in the reputations of Hsu and Campbell? With all due respect, >>not a chance. I don't think anyone should be expected to be so trusting in a >>field that's even remotely scientific. >> >>It would also be hard to accept #2, since DB is supposedly not optimized for >>short searches. And I believe that you've ruled out #5, which seems a sensible >>thing to do. > > >I haven't followed the discussion, but on short searches, how many plies deeper >do you need to compute to get a 38-2 result? > >My guess is that 3 plies and a bit of luck would do it easily. You need to be >100 to 200 times faster than your opponent to achieve this (less if you have a >decent branching factor, but DB has not). > >I think this is a very easy experiment to do. > >DB is definitely optimized for short searches, if you think about it. > >It has the best NPS of all times, and probably one of the worse branching factor >you can imagine, because of this crazy singular extension and lack of null move >(or related) optimization. > >So I would say that compared to modern microcomputer programs it would perform >worse and worse as time control increases. > > >Maybe I missed something? I am not sure tat it would perform worse because one ply of deeper blue is not the same as one ply of most of the commercial programs because of extensions. I can give an example from the commercial programs. Chessmaster6000 has a big branching factor but it does not perform worse at long time control. Uri
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.