Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 14:00:54 10/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2000 at 10:17:16, Albert Silver wrote: >On October 23, 2000 at 00:24:54, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On October 22, 2000 at 15:23:30, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >> >>>> I cannot think of any other purpose for all this other than to improve >>>> the program's rating in the SSDF. >>> >>>There is no harm all by itself in being at the top of SSDF. >>> >>>> You can't possibly use this for >>>> human players, and you aren't talking about offering playing styles, >>>> as that is already rampant. >>> >>>Human players routinely adjust their play to exploit better the stylistic or >>>capabilty weaknesses of their opponents, programs or humans. Programs aren't as >>>good (yet) at this kind of 'outside the board' strategizing, but they will get >>>better. >> >> >> >>I believe that the current chess programs/hardware combinations are already at >>the level or even better than GMs "on the board". Don't shoot at me right now. > >It's true that the performances that have been registered certainly show that, >so if that is true for all to see, why are there still many who insist it isn't >so? Hard-headedness? I think the issue isn't one of Elo, but of how one >perceives GMs. At first, with the gap being much much larger, people simply >pointed to the ratings, afterall, why seek further discussions if this basic one >was sufficient? The issue is in what a GM knows and applies at the board. Again, >traditionally, the game ends up being divided into a number of sections: >openings, middlegame (tactics and position), and the endgame. Computers have >fought the issue of openings by coming with opening books that often range in >the millions of moves. As positional play had been basically reduced to the same >tips handed over to beginners (put a rook on the open file, castle quickly, >develop your pieces ASAP, etc...), tactics became the great equalizer. True, >players were often capable of calculating specific lines much deeper (still >true) and create elaborate positional plans, but the computer fought back with >our very own mistakes. In fact this is a bit why many players hate playing >against programs: they don't feel their opponent played a better game, they just >lost because they made a stupid mistake which was revealed with the greatest of >ease (perhaps also making them feel slightly stupid). Computers have shown one >thing extremely well, and it has been a very valuable lesson: do not >underestimate for an instant the importance of tactics. From this lesson, some >have learned, and some have not. Kasparov himself has acknowledged the change in >perception and some GMs like Yermolinsky (in his masterpiece released last year) >have come to terms and said that there is no correct or 'better' style of play. >So that according to this, programs are indeed playing on equal terms (same >strength), but with different weapons. Then you have a different perception >shown by players such as Seirawan, who published in his book on the 1992 >Fischer-Spassky match, that players fell into 4 categories (he had written this >to talk about Fischer's game but it is very revealing): >- Tactical players >- Positional players >- Strategic players >- Builders >The last 3 (!) represent different levels of positional profficiency, and he >succintly declares that Tactical players are by far the weakest of the lot. The >reason is that prior to programs, there has never been such a lopsided player: >3000 Elo in open tactical positions, 2500-2600 in mixed positions, and 2100-2200 >(if that) in closed positional games. That isn't an exaggeration in most cases. >Again, the problem is that GMs don't make certain mistakes (they may blunder, >but certain conceptual mistakes will almost NEVER happen) and when the newly >touted 'GM's do this, they are pointed out to be not GMs. I understand. >I myself hesitate greatly to describe them as being anything other than GM >'strength', meaning they aren't GMs, but they're just as strong overall. Mind >you, this same reason is why GMs love computers as well: it isn't a peer, it's >something else, and as such presents a brilliantly challenging opponent to work >on specific aspects of their game in a way a colleague never could. > >> >>But the GMs are much much better at taking advantage of the "off the board" >>knowledge (they know their opponent and can adapt their strategy to it). >> >>This "off the board" knowledge and ability to adapt gives them an serious edge >>over computers. There is a big gap to close for computers because of this. It is >>maybe 50 elo points at this time (maybe even 100 elo point for a few >>individuals, but there are not many of them), and it might well be like the >>horizon. No matter how close you get, the horizon moves away. > >Yes, but you don't say 'how' it is they are adapting their knowledge. They are >merely emphasizing their strengths (strategy) as opposed to their weaknesses >(tactics) relative to the computer. One solution is to have the program do the >same, hence the 'anti-human' options that are appearing, and the other longer >route, is to try to balance it out and try to find a way to teach it to play >positionally. So far, this has been the single-minded direction followed, but >now we see there are other aspects such as the attack. The path followed so far is to create a monolithic player able to perform well against a variety of opponents. In this sense, computer chess has evolved a lot and has created monsters. It is already incredible to see that a player who never changes his way of playing (current programs) is able to do so well. It must be a strong signal that once we manage to create program that can adapt to the opponent, human players will be in deep deep trouble. >BTW, Gambit Tiger has been making so many waves, because it has been showing >another poorly exploited (by computers) aspect of the game: the attack. Since >the attack has always been a domain of tactical players, once programs were so >efficient tactically, it seems that it was overlooked that tactics are only a >part of an attack, not the attack itself. Add to that, the fact that it doesn't >wait for the opponent to make a mistake, but rather tries to win the game by its >own merits, and you have a very entertaining opponent. :-) > >> >>Increasing the computers speed will not solve the problem immediately. The gap >>should be closed by introducing some opponent knowledge into the programs >>(opponent modeling). > >This may possibly work, but I think that introducing the 'opponent's knowledge' >as opposed to 'opponent knowledge' is more interesting. Opponent modeling takes into account both the opponent's weaknesses (to go into positions where the opponent does not feel good)
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.