Author: martin fierz
Date: 14:11:57 02/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 16:06:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... i believe it's fundamentally wrong to force computers into some human straight-jacket. we have our capacities, the computers have theirs. nobody in his right mind would attempt to emulate the human thought process on a computer when trying to add up two numbers. limiting yourself to 1000 nodes for a search, just because humans are limited to that seems like limiting yourself to e.g. computing one digit per second in an addition - and then claiming that that is better than doing it in a nanosecond :-) cheers martin
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.