Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:06:00 02/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 15:38:58, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 16, 2004 at 14:43:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 16, 2004 at 10:31:03, Steven Edwards wrote: >> >>>Symbolic: The TNS (Thousand Node Search) >>> >>>The idea of limiting the cognitive search in Symbolic to under a thousand nodes >>>is based upon psychological studies that suggest top level human chessplayers >>>usually visualize between 100 and 1,000 positions per move in complex >>>middlegames. My personal time control upper limit preference for non-blitz >>>chess is a minute per move, and so the resulting target figure for node >>>frequency is about 20 Hz. >> >>I think you are starting off here using an unsound assumption. >> >>"100 to 1000 positions per move" is probably nowhere near right. There is a >>difference between a human mentally moving pieces around, and his comparing them >>to pattern-recognition information that in itself is the result of searching >>significant amounts of tree space. >> >>Who knows _what_ I actually do after thinking a few minutes and moving the >>pieces around in my head, to decide 'this position is one I want to reach." Did >>my "static evaluation" fold in a bunch of past experiences via pattern matching? >> IMHO picking some number like 1K is just picking a number like 1K, not that 1K >>is more or less meaningful than 100 or 10K... >> >> >>trying to quantify how many "positions" a human searches is pointless until we >>know how a human really "searches". To date, we have no idea. this probably >>won't change for many years, until all the marvelous abilities of the human >>brain have been analyzed and understood. > >I think that it is not necessary to know how the human brain analyze and it may >be possible to generate something better because humans do not do something that >is close to optimal. > >Humans do a lot of mistakes and they use a lot lazy evaluation. >When humans visualize positions they do not count exactly pawn structure of >every position and other factors and their lazy evaluation may miss an important >positional factor that they could see by looking at the relevant position for >another second. > >Humans also do not have a perfect memory and they may analyze the same line >again because they forgot that they already analyzed it or they forgot the >result of their analysis. > >Uri I wouldn't argue that point at all. however, the original reason for choosing "1000" was based on some perceived human ability to evaluate that many positions (upper bound). I think that concept is what is flawed. Trying to do a good program with only 1K nodes is an interesting goal. But thinking that the 1K number has something to do with human thought processes is probably incorrect. I say probably because no one knows, just yet...
This page took 0.01 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.