Author: blass uri
Date: 00:55:44 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 19:10:46, Amir Ban wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 14:05:46, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >>On July 18, 2000 at 09:29:12, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>Amir, >> >>I agree that Junior earned its points honestly. I also agree with most you write >>about these games. Still, you don't point out anything about the losses against >>Kramnik and Piket. And that was exactly what I had in mind writing this thread. >>Those two games showed exactly where chess computer programs still can be >>improved. And HAVE to be improved, otherwise human GM's will have good chances >>to get more points next year. And they will, because they have learnt. >> >>IMO if you solve most of the problems about king's attacks and closed positions, >>then it will be almost impossible for the strongest GM's ta beat a computer. >>Because in that case they have no advantage in any type of position anymore. But >>in 2000 there is still not much to be done when a clever player manages to block >>the position or start a slow attack: The programs do not know about this and >>only human mistakes will save them. >> >>So the crucial question is: When will one of the leading programmer stop >>searching for higher NPS, better searching techniques etc? When somebody will >>REALLY tackle the 2 problems I mentioned? Because otherwise a computer can still >>be beaten in 2010, running on 500 GHz. But as I already mentioned: This is the >>computerchess paradox: NOBODY wants to sac NPS for more knowledge. And as long >>as nobody wants to quit this 'rule', human GM's are still superior in knowledge >>and understanding of the game. >> >>Jeroen >> > >The speed vs. knowledge dilemma is a false one. It may apply to Rebel and other >programs, but it doesn't apply to Junior, where I have a framework to code >evaluation stuff virtually for free. 2 questions: 1)I guess that the fact that you can add evaluation stuff virtually for free in run time make adding knowledge to the evaluation less simple and you need more time to do the design decisions to change the evaluation function relative to other programs. Am I correct? 2)I know that Junior6a does not have a trapped knight code at least in part of the positions. Here is one position that demonstrates it from the game Junior6a-tal(15 minutes per move with no pondering) [D]r4rk1/pp1n1pbp/2p1p1p1/3nP3/2B2P1q/2N4P/PPPBQP2/2KR3R w - - 0 1 Junior blundered by 14.Qg4 and only after 14...Qxf2 it understood that it lost a pawn(15.Bxd5 cxd5 16.Nxd5 h5 17.Qg1 Qxg1 18.Ne7+ is bad because the knight is trapped in e7). Can you evaluate this stuff virtually for free? Uri
This page took 0.02 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.