Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:20:54 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 06:22:14, stuart taylor wrote:
>On May 05, 2002 at 19:58:09, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On May 05, 2002 at 19:25:07, stuart taylor wrote:
>>
>>>I mean, where are we? I cannot make it out yet.
>>>Can we safely say that a top program of today can beat all programs from before
>>>1996, i.e. 1995 and below?
>>
>>
>>Year of release?
>>
>>Wrong thinking.
>>
>>What you need to consider is the number of years the programmer has spent
>>actively working on his program.
>>
>>That gives much better figures.
>>
>>Genius 5 is a program of 1996, but it represents approximately 15 years of hard
>>work by Richard Lang.
>>
>>Now consider an amateur program of 2002, on which the programmer works since
>>1996.
>>
>>Are you going to compare 1996 and 2002 and decide that the 2002 program is
>>probably better?
>>
>>
>>I see this reasonning very often on this message board, and that's why I want to
>>point out that it is a really a very bad one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Which program, and if so, can we say that it is due
>>>to true chess understanding and correctness, or just due to greater power to
>>>calculate all the tactics? And even THAT maybe not, because even that might only
>>>be due to seeing the extra ply or so.
>>> But what about true chess knowledge? I mean long-term planning, and playing for
>>>minute advantages etc?
>>
>>
>>"Knowledge" in the sense of positional evaluation (that's what most people think
>>about when they talk about knowledge) makes for 10% of the strength of a chess
>>program.
>>
>>Chess is 90% about tactics (which is a concept close to "search").
>>
>>Naturally there is also a good deal of chess "knowledge" in a good search, but
>>it is really different from what most people generally consider to be
>>"knowledge".
>>
>>However, positional knowledge (evaluation) makes for 90% of the playing style of
>>a chess program, which is the only thing people can judge without playing
>>hundreds of games.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can any prgram of today beat all programs until a certain year, due to that
>>>knowledgs alone?
>>>
>>>I feel that if a 1995 program can beat a top program of today in even one game,
>>>that means that there are aspects which that older program knows better than the
>>>new one, or why else would it win?
>>
>>
>>A program (or human player BTW) can win without understanding why.
>>
>>You should definitely forget about drawing conclusions on ONE game.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>I don't understand. Are you denying the common understanding that humans are
>superior to machines due only to superior positional knowledge?
Yes.
Humans are also vastly superior in search.
Fortunately this "vastly superior" is compensated by much faster speed from the
computers.
They end up being quite close in search ability (at long time controls) but the
human is thousands of times slower. That's why I consider his search to be
superior (in quality at least).
>All chess annotators who used to (or still do) speak about a humans superiority
>in planning and regarding playing for small advantages culminating in an
>overwhelming position from which winning tactics flow, was this all just
>wishfull thinking? (Or wishy washy thinking?).
Chess annotators understand nothing to computers.
They see positional understanding where there is none, and fail to notice it
when there is some.
I have noticed numerous times how people were amazed by some supposed positional
knowledge that my program was supposed to have. It did not have it. Funny, isn't
it?
Explaining a win or loss by positional reasons is the only thing you can do when
you have no idea how a program searches its chess tree. But it's very often the
wrong explanation.
I do not deny that human players have a better positional understanding of chess
than computers. I deny the fact that it is as important as most people seem to
think.
>Also, Christophe, are you saying that 90% of 10% is style, which leaves only 1%
>which is actual strength due to simply positional knowledge (perhaps like what a
>top human GM has?). This last question may look a bit complicated, but It's
>partly also trying to understand what you were saying, which looks a bit like
>you may be meaning that.
>S.Taylor
Strength coming from positional understanding counts for 10% in the total
strength of a program (or a human BTW).
But these 10% makes for almost all the perceived playing style of a program.
Christophe
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.