Author: Mark Young
Date: 13:18:06 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1998 at 15:39:27, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On June 14, 1998 at 13:42:23, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 14, 1998 at 12:38:51, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>> >>>Hi all: >>>I cannot believe that after so many post from one side and another still >>>nobody seem prepared to accept how complex is this issue respect to the >>>apparent conflict between fast search and knowledgeable but slow search. >>>I have even seen a post where Mark said that the path to get the bottom >>>of the game is search, pure and simple. Yes, but, what kind of search? >>>Search is just a word, not a thing in itself. Is not the answer, but the >>>question. So we should go to the beginning and do some questions. Let me >>>recall some of them: >>>a) To be faster or stronger on anything else that can be quantitatively >>>measured is not equivalent to be in the right path. You can be faster >>>to follow the wrong path. You can dig deeper in the wrong place. You >>>even can discover something -as alchemists did- trying the wrong method >>>with the wrong assumption and the wrong ideas. Then is not good argument >>>to say because this and that has been got thought search THEN we must >>>continue with that no matter what. >>>b) Is not the same to be acquainted with the previous point than to have >>>a real an specific different and best method to replace the first. Is >>>not enough to say you are digging in the wrong place if don’t say where >>>that task should be done. If there is not real alternative, then to dig >>>deeper is the only one for now. So, is not enough to blame at the >>>“stupidity” of current search methods. >>>c) Nevertheless, although the advocates of “smart” search instead of >>>brute force have been incapable of doing much more, that does not mean >>>they are not aiming at the right directions even if they cannot do much >>>else than that. To stuck stubbornly in the faster approach and believe >>>IS the approach just because has given results until now is no smart or >>>scientific at all. Anything stubbornly and systematically done gives >>>some results, but they are increasingly less -law of diminishing >>>returns- and costly. In fact, all scientific and technological >>>development happens not when a method has failed, but on the contrary, >>>when it has reached his perfection. The ground is then ripe for a new, >>>superior principle. To be blind on that after so many historic lessons >>>is not a showing of intelligence. >>>d) This new principle surely will be something superior in kind and >>>level to the actual search, mainly based in the examination of how good >>>moves are with respect to parameters established in a table. That there >>>is another method is no fantasy: just take a look a at what experts or >>>above players do when playing chess. Surely they does not go move after >>>move looking his possibilities and then measuring how good they are or >>>not. They look at the position as such and understanding what is >>>happening -a game of chess is an historic process, not an static math >>>problem- they decide what should be done and only then they begin to >>>look for moves and only at the end of all this they perform calculations >>>to test the moves chosen on the ground of the previous understanding. >>>e) The previous point is not to say that tactical calculations are >>>inferior, meaningless, etc. A game is lost or won on the ground of >>>specific, tactical moves. That is the reason computers are so strong. >>>But even if you can win because of tactical shots without any concern >>>for “what is happening “ in the game, that does not prove the game IS >>>JUST tactical shots. We must differentiate between what chess is and how >>>players can play it. Millions of games are won of lost by patzers that >>>have no idea of nothing, and nevertheless a chess result is produced. >>>One of them won, the other lost. Does that means the winner had >>>understood the game? Equally, thousands of games are lost by humans >>>against computers, each day: does that means computer have a real grasp >>>of the game and so no further investigation about different method is >>>needed, just more of the same, more speed ? >>>f) The fact that the supposedly current smarts programs -as CSTAL- does >>>not show to be that smart and fall in many traps, tactical shots, etc, >>>does not prove anything, either. First steam locomotives were a lot >>>slower than horses. CSTAL is a kind of experiment . Maybe even is a >>>complete failure. But, again, that does not mean a thing. The debate is >>>not between CSTAL and the rest of the programs, but between search >>>methods based in the examination of many K-moves, one by one, of another >>>method that try to understand the position as strong human player do. I >>>would like to see a debate opened here on the ground of this last >>>specific point: how a program could simulate that kind of qualitative >>>understanding of position and his dynamic. Or is not possible? Bob? Don? >>>Amir? >> >>I don’t think anyone is saying that the slow and smart concept will not >>work. I am not saying that. > >Not I am saying the contrary. > > >I am just trying to explain how the other concept of fast and dumb also >>works well to achieve positional understanding. Since chess is nothing >>more then a huge tactical tree. > > >This is the key point where we disagree. Why? Because if in maths terms >chess is what you say, in practical terms is not because as a math >problems is not solvable. Yes, sometimes mere tactical analysis gives >you the key of the positions, but many times it does not. The higher the >game, the more akaweard tactical approach is. Take a look at gamnes by K >and K. Whart happens there is located in sich a high level you cannot >understand it just with a huge tree, at least the tree is so large as >the game itself, but we know that's impossible. > > >The positional understanding is in the >>search. Since the so-called smart and slow programs only have a very low >>grade of positional understanding. It seems to be better to use a fast >>search today to gain positional understanding. > > >I agree. I have never said that CSTAL is better that hois or that fast >searcher. I think is not. My point does not depends in CSDTAL perfomance >neither I am saying we must abandon fast searchers. > >This way the program is >>not guessing as much about a position. > > >Is not, also, an sisue of "guessing". You put all the thing in >caricature. So it seem like proponents of another approach are a kind of >irrational people that tends to be discomfited with calculations. Not at >all. I am talking of replacind or complementing the actual calculation >based in move-by-move by another based in positional structure, not >guessing. > Here is the rub. You can not base a program on structure. That’s the point. Any time you do that you are guessing. There are no firm structural laws that govern chess. So if you base a program on just this as your main way of understanding chess. The program will lose. The only way too truly understand if a move is good or bad is if the move maintains the balance of the game. And the only way to know this, is through A tactical search, and the deeper the better. The concept you propose denies the true nature of chess. And is doomed from the start. > >It sees what needs to be done. >>The argument is not about which concept is ultimately better. The >>argument is about trying to explain how a deep search can also give >>positional understanding. Some think that positional understanding and >>tactics are different things. > > > >They are, save in case when the positional issue is very simple. Then of >course the computer can see it. > > >>So you need to bog down a search with artificial rules of thumb to make >>the program play good chess. > >Who talñked ofg "rules of thumb? Let me be clear: I do not think rules >of thumb of much of the so called threory is equal to understand a >position. Even more, I tyhinks this understanding must be done, by >computers, in a differet way as we do. > > >>This is not true. Since today’s computers can see deeply enough to see >>what then need to do positionally in some cases. >>There is no need to bog down the search with *so many rules of thumb.* > > >Regards >Fernando
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.