Author: blass uri
Date: 03:32:40 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2000 at 05:37:21, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >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? > >So why didn't he think this of DB-1? It did about 100M NPS, but he ended up >crushing it (see game 6 of the first match). The NPS didn't seem to help so >much there. Obviously, there was a lot more knowledge in DB-2. Obviously 200M is bigger than 100M. It is also possible that the evaluation of DB-2 was better than DB-1 but it does not prove that it was better than the commercial programs. 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.