Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:47:34 10/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2001 at 14:34:04, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 12, 2001 at 14:26:18, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 12, 2001 at 13:32:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 12, 2001 at 11:24:03, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>> >>>>Hi >>>> >>>>On October 12, 2001 at 10:23:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>>First try the Nolot test positions for 36 hours. Then report back with >>>>>your "finding". :) >>>> >>>>And where exactly is the proof that the so-called solutions of these tests >>>>really are the best? Or is it more like opening theory where the so-called >>>>book moves just happen to be considered best/good by a large number of >>>>people, whereas it's possible that white to move is lost from the beginning >>>>(due to ZugZwang ;) and the best defense is a3? (maybe followed by h6! hee) >>>> >>>>Sargon >>> >>> >>>Some of them are provably correct (almost all in fact). But they take >>>far longer than 36 hours. >>> >>>If you really think 36 hours will solve _any_ problem, then you must think >>>that computers are unbeatable at correspondence chess? They are _far_ from >>>it in fact... >> >>I do not think that 36 hours are enough for every problem but beating a program >>at correspondence game is not going to prove the question of the original poster >>because he asked for as position that no program can solve > >It should be of course no top program because it is easy to build a lot of >programs when always one of them will solve the position that you ask. > >You only need to write about 200 program by the following idea if you do not ask >for top programs > >The first program is build to >play the first move in the list of the legal moves. > >The second program is build to play the second move in the list of the legal >moves or the first move if there is only onelegal move. > >The 50th program always play the 50th move in the move list or the first move if >there are less than 50 legal moves. > >I think that the shirov Bh3's sacrifice is a good example for a position that no >top program of today can solve in 36 hours. > >Uri That is a good one, yes. Another interesting set of positions would be the "key" positions in the old Mike Valvo vs Deep Thought two-game match played on r.g.c several years ago. There were some positions (one where he offered a pawn) that I don't think _any_ program will decline, yet it led to a very deep forced loss. There are a number of such positions. I tried the Bh3 position for a while and managed to make crafty play it by fiddling with the evaluation. But The resulting "settings" were way beyond non-reasonable and were only interesting to show how far a program had to be "warped" to think that Bh3 was winning when the program couldn't see the win tactically (it was a tactical position of course, and I eventually made crafty solve it positionally, which was not very interesting for long-range chess skill).
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.