Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 02:19:20 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 19:40:47, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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. Are you forgetting the text you snipped? Here's what you wrote: >But the point is that DB's evaluation is terrific. In fact, it's so terrific >that DB running at 100k NPS can stomp all over micros. So you're right, the >evaluation function may be tuned for a 14 ply search, but it's reportedly >wonderful enough that depth doesn't make a big difference. My paragraph above was in response to this. Against low-knowledge opponents, the search depth probably didn't matter so much. (Play one of today's 'top' programs with 1-ply search against a beginning chess player. The computer will probably still win most games.) Against GMs, the depth becomes more critical. (The same programs still don't beat GMs all the time, even with lots of plies of depth.)
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.