Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:07:45 02/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 1999 at 12:47:56, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On February 15, 1999 at 11:10:09, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>2k5/p7/Pp1p1b2/1PPP1p2/5P1p/3K3P/5B2/8 b - - acd 24; acn 119679487; acs 30001; >>ce -91; bm c5; pv bxc5 Be1 Kc7 Ba5+ Kb8 Bd2 Kc8 Ke2 Bb2 Be1 Bf6 Ba5 Be7 Kd3 Bf6 >>Ke3 Be7 Kd2 Bf6 b6 axb6 Bxb6 c4 a7 c3+ Kd3 Kb7 Kc2; c1 "LCTII.FIN.08 after c5 -- >>black to move"; c0 "Polugaevsky - Unzicker, Kislovodsk 1972"; >> >>2k5/p7/Pp1p1b2/1P1P1p2/2P2P1p/3K3P/8/4B3 b - - acd 25; acn -53936097; acs 30000; >>ce -193; bm c5; pv Kc7 Ke3 Kd7 Bb4 Kc7 Ke2 Bd4 Kf3 Ba1 Kf2 Bf6 Ke3 Ba1 Be1 Bf6 >>Kd3 Kc8 Bb4 Kc7 Bd2 Kb8 Ke3 Kc7 Bb4; c1 "LCTII.FIN.08 after Be1 -- black to >>move"; c0 "Polugaevsky - Unzicker, Kislovodsk 1972"; >>Here, with 25/26 plies considered, crafty's choice is ahead by a pawn. I wonder >>if LCT II might be wrong on this one... > >Einstein says that e=mc^2, and you assign a graduate student to look into this >for a few minutes, and he can't figure it out, so you tell him to look at it for >a day, and since he can't, you assume that Einstein is wrong? > >This analogy stretches, I admit. > >Not every problem is solvable in a short time. If you search for 8 hours you >are only searching a few more plies than if you search for 2 minutes. You're >just doing a little more of the same old stuff. > >Maybe the pawn sacrifice doesn't work, but the argument against it is going to >be a chess argument, not a "I searched this for a year and didn't find it" >argument. Well, that's clearly true. But I would argue that with 13 fullmoves lookahead, there are not a lot of people who will out-think the computer. In other words, as time goes by in computer assisted analysis, I think it increases the probability that the computer's choice is correct, especially when both choices are considered in detail. By supplying the pv for both possibilities, someone with a lot more chess knowlege than I have can say, "Yes, there may be something here..." or "No, this is clearly wrong. The position is Zugzwang here and so the computer simply did not consider the proper choice..." I will go so far as to say that unless a checkmate for one side or the other is undeniably proven then any 'best move' candidate is in question. Here's why: Imagine a 5 year old (non-prodigy) who has just learned the rules of chess. They look ahead one ply at a time for the immediate move. They have a move that would look best to them. But now, after 10 years of playing, the 15 year old is much better. Perhaps she looks ahead 'n' moves. She would beat the 'best move' of the 5 year old. Now, she faces a GM. The GM thinks ahead 'n'+2 or more moves at all times. The GM's best move is better than her best move. The GM faces a super GM. The super GM thinks one ply farther than the GM, on average (or however the strategy is superior -- probably nobody knows). From the same position, the Super GM's best move may be different than the GM's. Now, let's take that Super GM and let them think on a move for a whole month. After thinking it through very carefully, using database systems and computer programs to assist, the Super GM's best move may not be the same move they chose previously. In other words, a 'best move' is only 'best' compared to a worse move unless it definitely and undeniably leads to mate.
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.