Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 22:16:20 10/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 30, 2004 at 00:33:33, Russell Reagan wrote: >On October 29, 2004 at 17:36:40, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>Almost. The computer provides an opponent strong enough for anyone, as well as >>good analysis. However, there is one thing that the computer is very bad at: >>teaching humans how to play better chess. A computer can't say: I think white >>should play on the queenside so as to shatter the black pawnstructure. It can't >>say: Black shouldn't take this pawn because he will have to wade through a >>tactical melee for the next 30 moves. > > >Do you think we can accomplish this with current software tools and hardware? If >not, do you think we will be able to in the future? It seems like we don't have >such a thing now because a) no one has put enough effort into it, or b) it can't >be done (well) under the current chess engine model (i.e. alpha-beta based tree >searcher). Maybe a project like Symbolic will be a step in this direction. > >I think that if it is done, it will not be under the present chess engine model. >Chess engines are removing chess knowledge in favor of extra search depth as >hardware and algorithms improve. Ironically, humans are progressing the same >way: less dogmatism, more pragmatism. So maybe what you describe could actually >be a step in the wrong direction? Interesting ;) > >So where is the optimal point for best instructive value? Showing a 40 move >combination will not be terribly helpful to us humans, but perhaps the examples >you give aren't ideal either (slightly too dogmatic). Being human, there is a >limit to our pragmatic side in searching game trees, but something more position >specific than "white should play on the queenside" would probably be more >instructive. For instance, top modern players recognize that certain "positional >weaknesses" are not really weak at all. A bishop that is blocked in by its own >pawns may be very useful since it can aide in protection. Remember, "positional >advantages" are really just mental crutches to aide our poor tree searching >ability. > >In some ways the present chess engine model provides a lot of instructional >value. I have recognized that usually when I reach a position where I feel >"stuck", when I analyze it after the game the computer's recommended moves are >usually pawn moves. The computer could demonstrate the value of a blocked in >bishop if you are willing to try a number of variations and see how the computer >refutes them. So, in some ways we have what you describe, but in the form of >user-tool instead of student-teacher. > > >>Note that in terms of absolute chess strength the machines still have quite a >>ways to go before they approach perfect play, but that they are still far >>stronger than the average player (elo 400) so it doesn't matter much to most >>people ;) > > >Are you saying that the average player is 400 ELO below computers, or that the >average player is 400 ELO? Neither statement sounds correct to me :) I like the latter. That way I qualify as average, maybe slightly above :) Dan H.
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.