Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 15:14:43 05/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 1998 at 13:52:30, Don Dailey wrote: >On May 13, 1998 at 13:06:56, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On May 13, 1998 at 07:14:16, Ralph Jörg Hellmig wrote: >> >>>So if there is a special time control, one program may play positionally >>>better, but the other one has better tactics, for example, the >>>positional better program will be stronger if the time control >>>increases, as it does also see the deciding tactics ... >> >>Another chess legend. >> >>Who has any proof of this statement? > >I have empirical evidence of it. That is if you mean longer time >(or faster hardware) favors the program with more knowledge. > > >>More knowledge better at longer time controls? Take a look at the top of >>the SSDF list, sit down a minute, and think again about this legend. >> >>I think that if you have more time to compute, you need LESS knowledge. >>We still have to find which kind of knowledge is needed in this case, >>and which other can be thrown out happily. >> >> >> >> Christophe > >Hi Guys, > > >I used to believe strongly that with faster and faster hardware, >knowledge becomes less important. The reason I believed this >was that eventually all programs would converge on a game theoretic >solution, which is essentially proof of this concept. > >HOWEVER, at the depths we are currently doing (and for the forseeable >future) it seems that the opposite is true. I did a big experiment >where many programs with varying amounts of knowledge played each >other. I generated hundredes of thousands of games on several computers >over several weeks of time. What happend was that the programs with >the most knowledge, improved very rapidly with depth compared to the >programs with little knowledge. > >I suspect with a great amount of depth, the knowledgable programs >would not be able to improve very much since they would be close >to "perfect while the dumb ones would be playing catch-up. But it >looks like we are a long way away from these ranges at current >time controls on modern hardware. > >About your reference to Fritz. Is Fritz really so bad at positional >chess? Some people confuse conservative play with bad chess. Could >this be the case here? It's hard for me to believe Fritz could be >that horrible and still be on top just due to a little extra speed. >I'll bet you will find that it's evaluation is reasonable, well >balanced and not as bad as it's reputation. It's my understanding >also that Franz has added knowledge gradually over time to keep up. > Hi: You are right. Fritz is not that bad in positional play. That has became a kind of legend and nobody -as happens with legends- ask, now, how much true that that statement is. I Have played many games against Fritz 5 and it is no totaly deprived of sound positional judgment and the very last version that you can get in chessbase USA is a lot stronger in that sense. Precisely I was going to post a new post enterily dedicated to that. I have not made many test, but in equalo or similar positions the new Fritz 5 is not only decent, but clearly good in evaluating positional factors. Nevertheless, always a question rest qwithout answer: what is, in this fiel, Knopwelñedege? Is more or less the same we consider as theory in the field of human chess playing? I think it should be not. A theroy is a guide for certain kind of mind looking solutions and so it's validity is partially related with that. I mean, a computer thinks in a different way or it should, so a different kind of theroy could be more adbisable. But of course I am not ptogrammer, I cannot say more than this. As wee say in my country, "A different thing is wityh the guitar in your hands..." >The thing I notice about Fritz is that even on 1 ply, most of its >moves are reasonable, at least positionally. > > >- Don
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.