Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:44:47 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2000 at 09:15:00, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On January 24, 2000 at 06:32:40, blass uri wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>Does it matter? DT and DB were _clearly_ better than the commercial programs.
>Does it matter if it was the search or the evaluation or a combination of both?
>Because if we argue about the evaluation being better or worse, then we digress
>to arguing about "was their pawn structure eval better or worse?" And from that
>to "was their weak pawn analysis better or worse?" These are hard to answer.
>But the overall effect of the search + eval was dramatically better.
If DB is now shelved and not about to be dusted off, then I agree with Tom. Hsu
should write a paper on the eval of DB-2. If it is now history, then at least
let others use what they may and pick up the ball from there. That is the whole
idea of scientific evolution. Otherwise we'd still be discovering how to make
fires since each and every generation would have to re-invent it.
Albert Silver
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.