Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Symbolic progress report

Author: Tord Romstad

Date: 02:54:07 01/01/04

Go up one level in this thread


On December 31, 2003 at 21:23:25, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On December 31, 2003 at 20:58:08, Tord Romstad wrote:
>
>>On December 31, 2003 at 13:43:42, Steven Edwards wrote:
>>
>>>On December 31, 2003 at 13:31:56, Ed Trice wrote:
>>>
>>>>This was the Qh5+!! sacrifice, correct?
>>>
>>>Yes; a mate in ten.  One variation found by Symbolic's low level search goes:
>>>
>>>(1. Qh5+ Nxh5 2. fxe6+ Kg6 3. Bc2+ Kg5 4. Rf5+ Kg6 5. Rf6+ Kg5 6. Rg6+ Kh4 7.
>>>Re4+ Nf4 8. Rxf4+ Kh5 9. Rg3 Bxe6 10. Bg6#)
>>
>>Symbolic is an extremely interesting project, and I hope you succeed in creating
>>a super strong engine with your unusual approach.  However, forced mate
>>positions
>>like this one are not a good way to measure progress.  Solving them quickly is
>>easily
>>achieved by more conventional methods (the above position is solved in 7 plies
>>and
>>only a couple of seconds by Gothmog), and does not necessarily imply high
>>playing
>>strength in normal games.
>>
>>Tord
>
>
>
>Solving it in approximately the same time with a totally new approach would be
>extremely encouraging I would say.
>
>Current computer chess programs are light years behind human intelligence. Mine
>included. More "human-like" or "intelligent" approaches are really welcome and a
>very promising field.
>
>I'm fed up with Crafty or Fritz or Chess 4.x clones. I'm fed up with chess
>calculators. Show me something else now.
>
>It is going to be a very hard road. But there is much more merit in it than in
>writing yet-another-alphabeta-nullmove-hashtables-computer-chess-program.
>
>I would *LOVE* to see Chess Tiger torn into pieces by a Symbolic-like approach.
>The whole computer chess field needs to have his ass kicked by something new,
>because the current approach is coming to an end: it's very good, but has taught
>us very little about what intelligence is. It's like the Matrix movies: lots of
>promises at the begining, only disappointement in the end.

I agree 100% about all of this.  But when developing a chess engine using an
entirely
new and different approach, I think it is very important to concentrate on real
games
from the beginning, rather than mating problems and tactical test positions.
Otherwise
you risk to end up with an engine which cannot do anything well except running
test
suites.  Of course this danger also exists for programs developed with more
conventional
techniques, but I think the danger is considerably bigger when you try to do
something
new and revolutionary.

Tord



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.