Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:45:54 04/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2002 at 17:13:36, Sune Fischer wrote: >On April 02, 2002 at 14:41:49, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 02, 2002 at 12:14:47, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On April 02, 2002 at 11:16:23, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>> >>>>On April 02, 2002 at 05:08:08, Martin Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>>>"I was totally unprepared to play against a modern playing program. My >>>>>experience from the mid-1990s turns out to have been completely irrelevant >>>>>today" >>>>> >>>>>This is a surprise to me. He didn't know that there has been a big increase in >>>>>playing strength for chess programs in the last 7-8 years, of course due to >>>>>faster hardware but also better software. >>>> >>>>Do you think that Gulko didn't know of the hardware and software progress...I >>>>seriously doubt about this, probably it's just a good excuse ? >>>> >>>>>Then I would say his score of 3-5 without preparation, is excellent. >>>>> >>>>>http://www.kasparovchess.com/serve/templates/folders/show.asp?p_docID=20790&p_docLang=EN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Martin. >>>> >>>> >>>>In this case he affirms that only playing anticomps and with well preparation he >>>>is going to prevail in some way and this is another 100 elo points for the comps >>>>IMHO. >>>>Humans are piece of cakes if Gulko is right... :) >>>> >>>>w.b.r. >>>>Otello >>> >>> >>>I think what he is saying is, that he needs a bit of time to get used to a new >>>way of thinking. Computers do not make tactical blunders, so the time he spent >>>looking for that was just wasted. >>> >>>IMHO the rating of programs would drop 100-200 elo if the programs could enter >>>regular tournaments. The GMs would quickly discover some of their weaknesses, >>>they would learn good anti-comp strategies and would always be able to at least >>>draw the things. >>> >>>Does a few more plies/speed change this? >>>I'm not sure, I don't think 2 plies means a lot in turns of better king safety, >>>pawn eval and what else in the eval(). >>> >>>I have often seen very strong programs become very passive in closed positions, >>>they simply do not steer clear of this, it means they might draw low-rated >>>playes who just happen to know a bit of anti-comp. strategy. >>> >>>The fact is, that humans still have a far better positional eval than programs. >>>I think even low-rated (>1600) playes has a better positional understanding, but >>>they just get killed in tactics (probably why they can win with the fischer-move >>>rule:). >> >>No >>I do not think that low rated humans have better >>positional understanding than computers. >> >>There are positions that they understand better than computers but there are >>positions when the computer evaluation function is superior and in most of the >>positions that practically happen the computer's >>positional evaluation is better. >> >> >>Humans may overevaluate or underevaluate some advantage when >>computers often know better to give the right weights >>for the different factors in the evaluation > >Absolutely not. >If we talk only of a static eval, then it is much harder for a program to >"understand" when a knight is better than a bishop. >The problem with programs is they add so many small things together and do not >understand the critical point of a position, e.g. they don't understand the >fight over a dominating square, humans know when a passed pawn is strong and >when it is weak, It is not truth and there are cases they think they know only to find later that they were wrong. There were cases when I had a wrong evaluation of the position during a game and only after I came home to analyze the position with my chess program it could understand the position better by it's static evaluation and I am clearly better than 1600. this is all very hard to put in a static eval. Much of this is >just intuition, if we can't even put that stuff into words, then how are we >supposed to program it? >I imagine there must also be great problems in programming what kind of endgames >that win or lose. This is something you need to know way in advance before going >into the endgame. I agree that programs are relatively weak in understanding endgames that are not tablebases postions but the main problem in evaluation is evaluating the middle game and I think that the top programs are often better than humans in evaluating these positions(I am talking about players of strength 2000 and not about GM's but you also talked about low rated players in your post). Complex pawnstructures can only be approximated in a static >eval, the GM will have a much more intuative feel about what is drawn and what >is won. > >IMO programs get by with the use a tactics, you never see them sac. Not truth. There are programs that sacrifice material for positional gain. Junior,Gambittiger are 2 names of programs that do it and even more materialistic programs do it. In the israeli league Rebel refused to play a combination that wins a pawn against a GM because it prefered the positional advantage. I do not think that the decision was right but the point is that programs sacrifice Uri
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.