Author: Amir Ban
Date: 12:02:14 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 11:06:13, Alvaro Polo wrote: >On July 19, 2000 at 08:14:56, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On July 19, 2000 at 03:55:44, blass uri wrote: >> >>>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? >>> >> >>No > >I'll believe that adding new knowledge to Junior is almost free. I have then two >questions. > >1.- Why isn't then Junior's evaluation much better? Please don't misunderstand >me. I am sure it has a great evaluation but, one may think that when things are >almost free you could just add any bit of knowledge that you might consider >useful under any circumstance and have a really astounding, hypergreat, out of >this world evaluation. > Because the problem is not writing evaluation terms but deciding which one's are right or formulating them correctly. Not to mention giving them correct weight. I don't know where many posters in this newsgroup get the idea that "knowledge" in chess is obvious and it's just a matter of coding it. In fact the opposite is true: the *true* and *correct* rules of evaluation ar more like a hidden mystery that programmers look for like the mathematicians looked for the proof of Fermat's theorem. I can easily add 20 new elements to my evaluation, but I expect 19 of them will prove to be wrong, or (what amounts to the same thing), badly tuned. The best way to become familiar with this problem is to write a chess program. >2.- Assuming that DJ already outsearches GMs and assuming that its evaluation >will soon be better than GMs also, when do you believe DJ will beat the reigning >WC in a match? > I don't know. Amir
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.