Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:10:39 10/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2005 at 09:41:46, Zheng Zhixian wrote: >On October 27, 2005 at 05:30:59, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 27, 2005 at 04:41:49, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 2005 at 04:39:22, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>suppose that I give you 100 random positions from games. >>>> >>>>How much do you need to calculate fruit2.1's static evaluation of all positions >>>>with no computer help. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Is this the first step to distributed human search engines? :-) >>> >>>Alessandro >> >>I see that I forgot the word fime in the first post. > >What does 'fime' mean? I meant time. sorry for typing error. > >>I meant how much time do you need for calculating fruit's evaluation with no >>computer help. >> >>Note that I doubt if humans can complete even one ply search with fruit's >>evaluation at tournament time control without losing on time unless they play >>correspondence games(but maybe I am wrong and I know that some human can >>multiply big numbers very fast so maybe it is possible that some humans can do >>it. > >Sounds silly, why would humans want to do exactly what computers do for >evalution? I suppose when people say fruit's evalution is simple, they mean >simple compared to other programs. > >In fact I suspect while a human grandmaster cannot tell you why he decides to >evalute certain features more highly than others, as a result it looks like he >has very "simple" evalution compared to a computer. in fact behind it is a very >complicated subconcious calculation, pattern matching etc that is not available >to him directly. > >And of course simple doesn't necessarily mean inaccurate. > >>I think that talented humans can complete one ply search and play in tournaments >>like a computer but only with a simpler evaluation than fruit's evaluation. > >It would probably have to be a computer programmer. And it would have to be >pretty simple. Material only sure. Let's see probably have to keep track of >mobility , piece square tables? > > >>It will be interesting to know what rating can the best humans achieve against >>humans when they are forced to play like a computer with definitive algorithm >>(of course their oppoents should not know the algorithm because playing like a >>computer is enough disadvantage) > >Sounds like you want a human to play a full game by acting as a computer? > >If the former such a test did happen (though the human knew it was playing a >simulation of a chess program). In fact , I seen to recall reading that Alan >Turing did it by hand simulating a simple chess program back before there werent >real computers that could run the program. I think he did more than 1 ply of >course. Yes but I think that he used more than average of 3 minutes per move. I also think that it may be possible to improve his evaluation. I also do not claim that doing 1 ply search is the best strategy and maybe some rules of selective search that allow extensions in some lines may be better(for example a rule that say not to analyze king moves during the opening unless the king is under attack). Way simpler than modern chess programs of course, but it was complicated >enough that he made several mistakes following his algo and he had to often redo >it. > >If you restrict it to one ply, it would simplify things a lot. Then the question >would be if a computer is doing only one ply searches (no qsearch, no >extensions, just one ply), can you beat it? I certainly can do it but a beginner who play his first games may fail in doing it. I already saw weak correspondence games when the sides that play the games can use 3 days per move when I am quiet sure that the players who played them are going to lose against a simple algorithm. If you look at games of players with rating 1100-1200 that are not the weakest players in the site in the link you may find a lot of stupid mistakes. http://gameknot.com/players.pl Note that I do not suggest one ply with no qsearch and every algorithm that at least one human can follow at tournament time control is accepted. Uri
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.