Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 09:03:49 02/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2002 at 05:05:07, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On February 18, 2002 at 23:01:16, Antonio Dieguez wrote: > [snip] >ok. the question is: do you see a game of chess as a number of >test-positions, like an EPD-file, where your engine only has to find the >accurate move, the BEST move, or that it avoids the wrong move ? > >is chess only a number of positions you have to find the BEST move. > >or is it possible to play moves, that are in the position the 2nd or 3rd best, >they do not instantly lose, they let the score of the opponent >increase because it saw: ough - not the "best" move here, that makes me happy. > >but your engine plays those NON best moves because they are a subtarget >in a bigger plan, i understand, but are you sure that the programs you call of new paradigm do that? (not obtain an objetively better position in order to keep following an idea) may be not even ccs do that, you tell me. By objectively i mean the result of what the evaluation says. in the evaluation can be where the horse is and the enemy king is and how is the attack going right now, so the maneuver you mention later is not necessarily something that must be planned from the beginning, but it could be done following the evaluation if that results to be the better.... But i know what you mean, but i repeat my comment above, are you sure ccs and gambit tiger doesn't in general play the move with the highest score ? maay be ccs has a little of fixing a plan, but you can be wrong about it or others, it may be just an illusion. a. >lets say a normal program would have to push a pawn in position >move > >30. pawn push >31. defend bishop >31. recapture piece >32. short-castle > > >those moves are the best moves your engine sees in the POSITIONS. > >now lets say there is a different program, that has different mechanism. > >it wants to bring a knight from the queen side to the king side of the board. >Why ? because the "target" is to use the knight in a king attack. > >instead of playing the always best moves it tries to do a manouever. > >this is not seen by the opponents because THEY expect your engine to play >BEST moves. so they are blind ! > >but - of course it weakes your position. so you need extra knowledge to >judge if the knight, when brought to the king side, makes sense. > >i think, when replaying games of lasker, tal and fischer, that i can >see those behaviour of them in their games. that makes it for >computers so difficult to reproduce lasker,tal,fischer games. > >because they do often not play the BEST move. > >they sac the best move for the plan-move. > > >static against dynamic. > >for me chess is more than finding key moves in a position. > >i believe that beside the best moves, there exist interesting ideas, >that can be realized if someone is interested in. > >this is what differenciates computerchess and human-chess. > >computerchess is often not creative. the programs do not follow an idea. >they only compute the best move. > >they are not interested in ideas. >they play chess like it is an EPD file they solve.
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.