Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:57:08 10/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2000 at 09:56:24, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On October 20, 2000 at 09:26:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 20, 2000 at 01:00:07, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >> >>>> IE if my program plays Rc6 and I can prove it is correct, I am happy. >>>> If I can prove it is bad, even though it won the game, I am not happy. >>>> If I can't prove it either way, I am concerned. That was the point >>>> here. I want my fate in my hands, not resting on whether my >>>> opponent overlooks something or not. >>> >>>You are idealizing ability of risk-averse programs. If it were tic-tac-toe >>>you can prove move is correct. But in chess, just because some hand-put >>>tangle of evaluation terms gives, say, 0.3 pawns more for move A than >>>for other moves B, C,... you haven't proven move A is correct. It is >>>only "correct" within the model game (-tree) your program substitutes >>>for the full chess tree (where every leaf is win, draw, loss). >> >>You are making the assumption that "heuristics" cannot be "accurate". I >>can give you lots of examples where this is a false assumption. IE try to >>play a simple k and p vs k ending against Crafty. With no tablebases. >>It only takes a few heuristics to play this perfectly, as any good endgame >>book whill explain. > >That is very narrow thinking, picking out simplistic examples, the big picture, >the whole game is another story. Bob do you think there are many perfect games >played by a player ? even one ? > >Wayne >> Not only do I think there are perfect games, I am certain enough about it to say "absolutely". And not just a few either... >> >>> >>>And only the final outcomes (and lots of them) can tell you which toy >>>model of the game simulates the real game best. That is the criteria >>>not only for some complex positional terms, but for every term, as much so >>>for Knight = 3 Pawns as for "this particular king attack" = 3 pawns. >>> >>>There is no rule of the game which lets you "cash in" at will your >>>Knight for 3 pawns, or the other way around, just as there is no >>>rule letting you "cash in" some king-attack poise for 3 pawns. Both >>>figures 3 are pure constructs of the respective models, they're little >>>wheels in a toy which is trying to simulate the real thing. >>> >>>So, Crafty is only "correct" or "accurate" in following its model game, while >>>Gambit Tiger is as "correct" or "accurate" in following its own model game. The >>>two are two different model games (somewhat similar, well, yes), and neither >>>model game is the full chess tree (not even close). And whichever one beats the >>>other more that one has better model of the game, the model overall closer to >>>the object it models. >>> >>>From this more abstract perspective your objections to GT's "risk taking" is of >>>this kind: I see that odd wheel in that toy model, and if I were to put it into >>>my toy model (or any model I understand or can imagine) it would wobble and slip >>>so much that my whole toy model would fall apart. Therefore, that is a bad >>>little wheel, and the whole model which has it can't be very good or solid. The >>>only thing that really follows is that it's a "bad little wheel" if it were >>>transplanted into your model game, not necessarily bad for Gambit Tiger's model >>>game, much less for all other possible model games simulating chess. >> >>I don't know whether the speculativeness of GT is good or bad. I simply brought >>up the possibility that if a program 'gambits' away positional advantages for >>other positional advantages, it is perhaps not a game-winning/game-losing >>decision. But if you gambit away a piece, a mistake will change the game >>outcome significantly...
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.