Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Immortal game? Qc7?! analyse by S8 (Be7!)

Author: chandler yergin

Date: 11:34:52 11/10/04

Go up one level in this thread


On November 10, 2004 at 13:14:21, Uri Blass wrote:

>On November 10, 2004 at 12:55:52, chandler yergin wrote:
>
>>On November 10, 2004 at 10:39:47, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On November 10, 2004 at 10:05:04, chandler yergin wrote:
>>>
>>>>On November 10, 2004 at 06:21:14, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On November 09, 2004 at 20:44:14, chandler yergin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On November 09, 2004 at 17:53:34, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On November 09, 2004 at 17:10:02, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are missing the point, Chandler.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You probably played through the game with Shredder 8 on.  At that point, it
>>>>>>>>found that some of the positions it originally thought were good for black, were
>>>>>>>>in fact good for white, and it recorded them.  You then returned to the initial
>>>>>>>>position, and boom! it has learned from its mistakes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What is the difference you ask?  The point is that Shredder would not play those
>>>>>>>>moves on its own, without help from a human, without a very long time to search.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>anthony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>Your explanation is better than my explanation and I hope that finally Chandler
>>>>>>>will understand the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You all 'miss' my Point!
>>>>>>and.. miss the capability of the Search Engine!
>>>>>>CY
>>>>>
>>>>>We miss nothing
>>>>
>>>>You missed this, you're misleading,
>>>>and obsessed with 'locking' the engine to a single variation!
>>>>Show what the Engine is really analyzing!
>>>>Many variations!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The capability of the search engine after learning is simply irrelevant for this
>>>>>discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>The discussion was about the question if engines can find the move in a game
>>>>>without previous knowledge that humans give him from analysis.
>>>>
>>>>And.. they DO!
>>>>Of course they do!
>>>>That's what an Analysis Module Does!
>>>>It finds ALL the Possible moves in a position, and evaluates each one.
>>>
>>>Finding all the possible move and evaluating them does not mean finding
>>>correctluy what is the best move and if an engine evaluates h5 as second best
>>>then it did not find that h5 is the best.
>>>
>>>The engine also evaluates all the moves even if you do not give it many lines.
>>>It does not show you the analysis in that case but only the analysis of the best
>>>move but it analyzes other moves to find that they are weaker.
>>
>>Yes!
>>
>>Thank you!
>>
>>Now we agree that the Engine does indeed find and evaluate the move.
>>A great deal different, than the assertion it
>> "doesn't find it or can't find it"
>
>When people say does not find the move they mean that it does not find that the
>score is better for that move(otherwise engines can find every move).
>
>>>
>>>>You know that! Or should!
>>>>Don't tell us an engine doesn't or can't find a move!
>>>
>>>It is a fact that engines do not find the move h5 in a short time in their
>>>strongest setting that is with only one option
>>
>>
>>Right, it doesn't 'show it' with you locking it in to only one variation.
>>You now agree with that. BUt it's found it and evaluated it, and dismissed it as
>>not being the strongest move.
>>At that time.. let it run
>>and.. lose on time
>>;)
>>CY
>
>When I say does not find I do not mean that it does not search the move but only
>that it does not evaluate it as stronger otherwise engines can find every move
>and the discussion if engine can find some move is meaningless.
>>
>>>one option is the strongest setting because having an exact score for more that
>>>one move usually make them slower and it is better for them to find only a bound
>>>for the moves that are not the best in order to find that they are weaker.
>>>
>>>The fact that using some options can help to get better analysis is irrelevant.
>>
>>
>> From whose standpoint?
>>Unless the Computer is hooked up to ICC or Playchess, and makes the move
>>automatically, it's not irrelevant.
>
>It is clearly relevant for the programmer who want the engine to play better
>moves.
>
>It is also relevant for the user because the user is interested in the best move
>and if he has not a lot of time to analyze he may believe the move that the
>engine shows as best and not to the second move.
>
>There are advantages for using one option because the engine may search deeper
>with only one option.
>
>Uri

That is does..
But Human against Human is still more exciting
;)
CY



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.