Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:32:58 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 05:43:41, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 05:28:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 23:10:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>The "weights" don't always reveal what they stand for. I've had the DT >>>code for at least 2 years. It isn't new. But I can give you the weights I >>>use in Crafty and they don't tell you _what_ I am actually doing with them, >>>only the numbers I am using. Their bishop of opposite color + pawn ending >>>evaluation was _very_ good. Once Hsu explained it to me at an ACM event. >>>You won't find that explanation of how it works in the stuff you reference. >>> >>>Which is a shame, actually. There's a lot in the thing that we won't ever >>>know in great detail. >> >>The code includes the full eval itself. You can check it out and see >>how they did kingsafety, bad bishops, passed and blocked pawns, etc... >> >>The tuner has that code because it is useless without it. You can't >>tune an eval if you haven't got any. >> >>What I don't see is the endgame stuff you talk about. I see two possible >>explanations: >> >>a) they thought it was so great that it shouldnt leak out and carefully >>removed all references from it from the tuner >> >>b) they simply didnt _have_ it yet at the 1988 US Open. Perhaps it was >>added afterwards in DT, DT2 or DB, and you are confused about when they >>talked about it to you or implemented it. >> >>Make your pick. >> >>I think what the code shows is that in the 1988 US Open, Deep Thought >>did not have great sophisticated evaluation. An ok one yes, but it's >>certainly been surpassed by the micros in the meantime. >> >>Which doesn't mean anything about the evaluation of DT after 1988 or >>of its succesors, but I find it awkward to be making much fuss about >>DT's supposed evaluation if you can _look_ at it and see what they >>did and did not do. >> >>-- >>GCP > >I remember that I read that Deep thought lost a match 2.5-1.5 against bent >larsen(I am not sure if it was in 1992 or 1993) and I read that deep thought >could probably win by trading queens because the opposite color bishop endgame >when deep thought has 2 passed pawns is not a draw. > >Deep thought did not know about it at that time and I remember that they >admitted that they need good chess players with knowledge about chess to help >them. > >Uri That sounds like the event that triggered their adding the new knowledge into the program. But I am not certain.
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.