Author: Mark Young
Date: 14:37:14 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1998 at 17:12:02, Robert Hyatt 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? > > >First an introductory statement, then an opinion. Humans and computers >are different. *totally* different. Computers don't do things like >humans >do, they will *never* do things like humans do, until computers evolve >into >something similar to our brain, with all of its abilities. *not* for a >long, long, long, long time... > >Given that, then I firmly believe in a statement I have made many >hundreds >of times... you can reach the same point with knowledge *or* search. >Yes, >you can abstract many types of knowledge... and yes, I can create many >types of search extensions... and eventually, we both are going to >reach >the same point... because it is going to take your "knowledge" just as >much >computation time to come to a valid conclusion as it is going to take my >search algorithm to reach that same conclusion. But, from experience, >my >search algorithm is going to be orders of magnitude simpler, and more >bug- >free. > >Given that, I depend heavily on search, while using knowledge to fill in >the >holes that I can't cover with search *today*. But as time passes, this >knowledge gets replaced by better search with faster hardware, and then >I >use new knowledge to fill in the holes that are left. > >You can take a lousy search, and fill in the holes with knowledge. But >the >knowledge often has more exceptions than necessary, which leads to wrong >conclusions. > >To date, search is working, particularly when augmented with the right >kinds >of knowledge to help with things that search can't currently handle. >But if >you slow down too much, pure search will be more than enough to win the >game... fritz is a good example here... You might have great pawn >structure >and piece outposts, but if you are mated, that doesn't count for much... I agree. Thank you for put this in your own words, as I am so inept in it saying it clearly.
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.