Author: Chris Carson
Date: 16:03:24 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 18:30:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 20, 2002 at 17:27:09, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On April 20, 2002 at 16:26:13, Mike Hood wrote: >> >>[snip] >>>Russell, although you're contradicting my basic tenet (ie that computer programs >>>don't use strategy, they just use brilliant tactics), our viewpoints aren't so >>>far apart. Using your metaphor, the grandmaster is the tortoise and the computer >>>program is the hare. The computer program can analyse 100000 positions while the >>>grandmaster is analysing a single position. And yet the grandmaster can still >>>win. How? The grandmaster makes up for his severe loss of speed by using >>>"strategy". He can't outrun his opponent, so he throws the ball at the last >>>moment. This is possible at the moment, but one day computers will become so >>>fast that not even strategy will save him. As rightly claimed in a parallel >>>thread on this topic, tactics -> infinite = strategy >> >>I think it is possible for computers to make use of positional ideas and to >>create a plan in a way similar to humans, but I also think that while they >>_could_ do that, they would probably play weaker chess than they do with their >>current method. >> >>Usually strategies (plans) stem from positional ideas. IE "He has a holes at f6 >>and h6 so I will move this piece here, then this piece there, then bring up my >>knight and I will have a good attack against his king." That is a plan, a >>strategy. And what is the point of this strategy? The end goal is to "have a >>good attack against his king". In other words, the end goal is tactics. >> >>Think about other areas of science. We don't understand every little special >>case in science. We have physics equations that only work for constant >>acceleration (and more accurate ones too). Because we don't understand every >>small special case in much of science, we develop general principles to help our >>understanding of a particular science, and chess is no different. Take >>predicting the weather. If we knew and could measure every possible variable >>from the surface of the sun to earth (and probably more would be needed), then >>perhaps we could predict with great accuracy what the weather would be like here >>on earth at any given moment. We could say "it's going to rain today at 1:43pm >>and it will last for 23 minutes and 17 seconds." Since the science of predicting >>weather is too complicated for us to currently understand, we form general >>principles to help us predict weather. The weather man says, "there is a cool >>front moving in here so it will be colder in two days than it is now, and it >>might rain tomorrow", but he isn't really sure about any of it. Weather men use >>hueristics like chess programs do. Little shortcuts and generalities that get us >>started in the right direction, but can't provide a 100% accurate answer. >> >>Chess is no different from other sciences in this respect. In chess we have the >>same generalities that other sciences develop to help us understand complex >>positions. We call these generalities positional factors, and they get refined >>and refined over time. Eventually as these general theories we have about >>positional factors becomes more and more refined, someone will notice something >>new. That's how theories work. Someone makes a theory, and if it works for the >>most part, it's accepted. Then that theory becomes the generally accepted theory >>for a while. Eventually there are too many special cases that the theory doesn't >>handle correctly, so a new theory is formed that can handle all of the special >>cases. It would be nice to think that eventually in chess we will refine our >>theories on positional play so much that we unlock a "secret key" to playing >>chess, but I don't think that's going to happen. >> >>I think chess is purely tactical, and while we have strategy to help our >>tactical ideas succeed better, chess really boils down to tactics. When >>computers are finally fast enough to "solve" chess, then we can take any >>position and say for a fact what the best move is. The down side to that will be >>that the reasoning for that move being the best move will be billions and >>billions of variations that lead to mate or a draw, so while we might be able to >>say what the best move is, we might not have any understanding of why it works. >>Imagine trying to understand a 120 move combination :) >> >>Russell > >It is not interesting. > >It is clear that if the computer is fast enough it can solve chess. >The real question is what to do when you have not computer that is fast enough. > >The case of 120 move combination already happens in tablebases thanks to people >like nalimov who use a lot of computer time to investigate these endgame and I >do not understand the purpose. > >I could understand building tablebases for a private program in order to win >a competition but I do not see a reason to waste a lot of hours of computer time >only to give tablebases for free. > >Helping chess players? >I doubt if it helps much. > >What do chess players earn from it except frustration when they see a mate in >200 in some KRB vs KBN when even after hours of analysis they cannot understand >the idea of the moves? This is a profound statement. In this way do computers add to the "General Knowledge of Chess"? Can programs now do "something" that human can not understand? > >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.