Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 00:59:33 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 01:00:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 05, 2000 at 18:08:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 05, 2000 at 14:09:12, Andrew Williams wrote: >> >>>On November 05, 2000 at 13:31:22, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>On November 05, 2000 at 11:57:26, Andrew Williams wrote: >>>>[D] rn1q1rk1/6bp/p2p4/1p1Pp2n/6b1/2NBB3/PP1QN2P/2KR3R w - - 0 16 >>>> >>>>thank you for the position. >>>> >>>>>I'm afraid my program isn't famous, but here is its output. It never >>>>>considers that Black is better, although the score is falling as it >>>>>gets deeper. I think I'll run this overnight and see what happens. >>>> >>>> >>>>yes. the thing is not to find the move. the thing is: >>>>how to evaluate the position ! >>>>draw ? winning for white ? >>>>better for black ? >>>>how to evaluate positions where there is no material win ! >>>> >>>>> 1= 54 0 188 16. Rdf1 Rxf1 17. Rxf1 >>>>> 2= 54 0 252 16. Rdf1 Rxf1 17. Rxf1 Bxe2 18. Nxe2 >>>>> 3= 31 0 804 16. Qc2 Nf6 >>>>> 4= 55 0 2228 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 >>>>> 5= 35 0 8550 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 Nbd7 >>>>> 6= 58 1 40623 16. Rhg1 Bf5 17. Bg5 Qe8 18. Bh6 >>>>> 7= 39 5 181115 16. Rhg1 Bf5 17. Bh6 Qh4 18. Bxf5 Rxf5 19. Qc2 >>>>> 8= 39 19 476616 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 Bf3 18. Bh6 Bxh1 19. Rxg7 >>>>> 9= 38 59 1706262 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 b4 18. Bg5 h5 19. Bh7 Kh8 20. >>>>>Bxf6 >>>>>10= 24 417 12520722 16. Rhg1 Qd7 17. Qc2 Bf5 18. Bh6 Bxd3 19. Rxd3 >>>> >>>>the score is 0.24 ? >>> >>>Correct. At depth 10, score is +0.24 for White after 417 seconds. The last >>>number is the number of nodes. >>> >>> >>>Andrew >>> >>>> >>>>>This is on a K6-2 300 which was a bit busy doing other things too. I can't >>>>>comment on your views below, but one thing I will say is that PM would get >>>>>crushed in a straight match against Fritz, Shredder, Junior or Hiarcs. And >>>>>Gambit Tiger as well :-) >>>> >>>> >>>>right. you can reach lots of elo when you forget about chess and just >>>>count the pieces and search very deep. you can even outsearch >>>>more intelligent programs. but is this chess ? >>>> >>>>the position above is IMO about chess. >>>>its not to find the move. its to see in move 16, better in move 14, >>>>that white is better and black cannot defend much longer. >>>> >>>> >>>>i am not saying: ANY program that finds the move Rhg1 is a new-paradigm >>>>program. >>>> >>>>but i am saying that programs of the new paradigm find out that white is better >>>>and has winning chances. >>>> >>>>Thats what gandalf, cstal and most of all 3, gambit-tiger evaluates here. >>>> >>>>the new paradigm is not about FINDING key moves. Thats not playing chess. >>>>it is cross-word. is cross-word-puzzle-solving beeing intelligent ? no. >>>> >>>>the new paradigm is not about finding key moves in positions that HAVE >>>>a solution. the new paradigm is about finding a plan and evaluating >>>>it as a chance in a position that is NOT solved. >>>> >>>>you see the difference ? >>>> >>>>A bednorz-toennissen test-suite has 30 positions, and the programs >>>>havwe to find the key moves. its bean counting. >>>>the positions are all won ! the key move is there ! >>>>thats not chess, its solving cross-word-puzzles. >>>> >>>>the differenciation is not WHICH PROGRAM finds the moves. >>>>there is nothing to find. you have to invent something. therefore >>>>you have to evaluate for it. >>>>otherwise you won't follow the idea, or ? >>>> >>>>imagine you have fritz and you think: oh- the position is draw, slightly >>>>better for black. and then you lose the game. >>>>brilliant, isn't it ?? >> >> >>Minor eval changes (commands any user can type directly into crafty) will >>yield this: >> 5 0.35 -- 1. Rdg1 >> 5 0.40 4.17 1. Rdg1 Bf3 2. Bg5 Qc7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >> 5 0.64 ++ 1. Rhg1!! >> 5 0.74 4.72 1. Rhg1 Bf3 2. Rdf1 Qc7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >> 5-> 0.88 4.72 1. Rhg1 Bf3 2. Rdf1 Qc7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >> 6 1.15 4.61 1. Rhg1 Nf6 2. Bh6 Ra7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >> 4. Bxg7 Rxg7 >> 6-> 1.40 4.61 1. Rhg1 Nf6 2. Bh6 Ra7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >> 4. Bxg7 Rxg7 >> 7 1.85 ++ 1. Rhg1!! >> 7-> 4.66 5.00 1. Rhg1 Nf6 2. Bh6 Ra7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >> 4. Bxg7 Rxg7 >> 8 7.20 5.35 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 e4 3. Bxe4 Re8 4. >> Rxg4 Qxg4 >> 8-> 13.21 5.35 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 e4 3. Bxe4 Re8 4. >> Rxg4 Qxg4 >> 9 25.25 5.23 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 Rf4 3. Bxg7 Nxg7 >> 4. Nxf4 Bxd1 5. Ne6 Nc6 >> 9-> 31.06 5.23 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 Rf4 3. Bxg7 Nxg7 >> 4. Nxf4 Bxd1 5. Ne6 Nc6 >> >> >>Which shows what your position proves. Namely nothing. The first issue is >>to _play_ the right move. Whether your eval is overly optimistic or overly >>pessimistic doesn't really matter, in this position... >> >>There is no "new" paradigm... >> >>That is just a buzz-word... > > > >If it's so simple, Bob, why don't you play with this tweaked Crafty in a serious >tournament? > >Remember that Gambit Tiger 1.0 has WON the two tournaments he entered recently: >the french computer championship and the dutch computer championship. It has not >only made a nice show, but it has also WON the tournaments. > >How would Crafty have performed in these two strong tournaments? How would the >tweaked Crafty perform? > >The one who proves nothing here is YOU. Gambit Tiger has proved what it can do. >Your tweaked Crafty is just a joke. Ok, what do you do then? I don't know much about your engine and I don't own a copy of it. Additionally, I have been mostly dormant for the past year and a half (no work on Ferret from March 1999 to October 2000), so if you have explained all of this elsewhere, I may not have noticed. I have heard various people say that it gets very deep, so I'd like to ask first how you do that? Is Tiger a null-move program or does it prune out lines via some other mechanism? And regarding the eval, do you do tip eval, root processing, some sort of incremental evaluation, or soemthing else? Are you winning games because you are ungodly fast or is it some other reason? Everyone's eval terms look great when they outsearch the opponent by four plies. In this particular position, what are you seeing? The position can be viewed in any of several ways: 1) One way is a very blunt approach, which involves detection of open lines without being very interested in what is on the open lines. It's typical for a program to award a bonus for an open file into the enemy king position, without bothering to see if there is a rook on the file. 2) You can be more sophisticated and say, here are some open files into the king, and here are some open diagonals into the king, and here are some pieces on those files and diagonals, and these pieces seem pretty close to the opposing king, and here are the defenders. You can mash this all up and produce a value. 3) You can be even more sophisticated and try to determine which points are vulnerable to being overcome through direct attack, perhaps even explore some means of increasing attack or defense of those points. I have made numerous tries with Ferret. Versions up until now have been somewhere between #1 and #2. The original version just took into account structural defects, it would add and subtract various numbers of centipawns for open files into the king position, or various defects in the pawn structure, without taking into account whether the open files were inhabited, and without noticing queen location or open diagonals or whether the board was bisected by locked central pawns and so on. This worked OK, but then again almost everything does. It was vulnerable to getting ripped by humans, but computers didn't give it much trouble since they didn't attack. I tried to add much of this stuff into versions of my program that have been seen publicly over the past few years. The program still didn't have any knowledge of open diagonals, and it didn't check to see if rooks inhabited open files, but it did try to figure out where the queen was, and if there were any pieces planted on strategic squares like f5, and it tried to figure out if there was a central pawn configuration that it needed to be concerned about. My intent was several-fold: 1) Try to create a speculative attacker. 2) Try to avoid getting munched by aggressive humans. 3) Try to create something that was sensibly aggressive with pawns. I had some successes with this, and a few times the program generated nice attacks, against both humans and computers, but I wouldn't call it sensibly speculative. It was probably quite successful against humans, not that it got much chance to try. Within the last few days I've redone king safety again. The newer version knows about rooks and bishops striking into the king position, and it can handle rook lifts and so on. It divides the minors into primary and secondary attackers, a primary attacker being right in there, and a secondary attacker having a good chance of swinging over into attack, but not necessarily attacking right now. It also figures out if a rook has a clean line into the king position, and if so it regards that as a primary attacker. It figures out the status of the queen, which is also given the status of a primary or secondary attacker. After everything is counted, I convert the above into a score. The score can be huge, like five or six pawns, mostly based upon the presence of a supported queen. This version attacks a lot more than older versions, and seems to be making good decisions. It got a lot of pieces around the enemy king and blew through a couple of times today, and it sacrificed pawns a few times and the exchange once or twice. It's only played 12 games but it won 8 of them, against apparently pretty tough computer opponents, and I think I can make it quite a bit better with a bit of messing around. Also, I used it to watch games in the CCT2 tournament today, and it seemed to be spotting attacks there pretty fast. There are some obvious things it doesn't understand, that I think I can make it understand, like for instance it doesn't have any particular fear of playing ... g6 and trading off its dark-square bishop. But I think te basic idea of identifying real attackers, and creating a compounded bonus based upon several of these attackers, is pretty sound. How are you getting three pawns of comp in this position? What are the elements of this compensation, according to Tiger? bruce
This page took 0.01 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.