Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: more examples for search-based stupidity

Author: blass uri

Date: 12:16:50 06/12/98

Go up one level in this thread



On June 12, 1998 at 12:00:58, Thorsten Czub wrote:


>Again: todays computer programs, no matter if world microcomputer
>professional chess champion or
>microcomputer chess champion. Also the today's machines cannot hide
>their big weaknesses.
>They have NO idea about positional-topics. And tactics is really not the
>problem.
>If all chess games are 100 % tactics (what is often told here) - where
>is the tactics in those games here ?
>And why were the programs unable to handle the topic ?

the programs were unable to handle the topic because they do not know
what lines to search.
knowing what lines to search is tactic.

>No - their problem is not tactics. And tactics is not the most common
>CONTENT when it comes between human vs.
>machine  (or cstal vs. machine ) games.
>
>I would like to discuss about those things, instead of discussing about
>FINDER positions and making silly lists
>which program is faster than another finder. because we don't really
>measure strength. We measure how fast their
>searches are. This IS a PART of the strength, but most often not the
>same as the real strength.

I do not agree we measure how fast their searches are

there are test positions when fritz5 is faster than Junior4.6
not because it is a faster searcher(more than 30 times faster)
and there are test positions when the opposite happens
because in 1 positon fritz5 understand better what lines to search
and in the other position the opposite happens.

Uri
>
>Please don't throw tactics and FINDING-key-moves in ONE melting-pot.
>Also don't believe a "king-attack-position" that is found by
>fast-searchers is really a king-attack-position.
>Most often king-attacks are very quiet, and easy. They were NOT seen by
>search. Gandalf and other programs have
>specialized to find them without search. I think this is a good idea,
>since humans (if not badly influenced by
>"advisors" are still capable to attack ).



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.