Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:17:28 02/20/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2006 at 15:45:26, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On February 20, 2006 at 02:28:36, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 20, 2006 at 01:21:44, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On February 19, 2006 at 18:43:40, George Tsavdaris wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>If you believe so than try to see how long it takes to a program to believe this >>>>>move is interesting to be played... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Once again you use inductive logic..... The fact that all programs can't find >>>>THIS specific position, can't contradict none of my above statements! You should >>>>find other arguments for that....:-) >>> >>>I do not want to contradict your statements, but only show you one example which >>>show how little is the depth reached by computers to find good novelties. I did >>>not chose a special one, but the first one I saw on the new Chess Informant. >>> >>>After nearly 30 years of testing on computer programs and having checked with >>>them probably some several thousands of games (200.000 - 300.000; I did not >>>count them) I am 80% sceptical. >>> >>>I mean that they can find some novelties in some specific positions, but most of >>>the time they are not good for the reasons I told you. >>> >>>If you don't want to believe me it is up to you. >>> >>>I am not interested to teach things to people, but possibly only tell them my >>>findings. >>> >>>Ciao >>>Sandro >> >>I think that part of the novelties are not correct and only has practical value >>because the opponent is not ready against them. > >Of course I am referring to strong novelties...those that can work at GM >level...for low rating players even childs can propose some... >> >>Top GM's can choose a move that leads to objectively slightly inferior position >>against correct defence when they are almost sure the opponent is not going to >>find the correct defence(and even if he find it they have good chances to draw >>the game because slightly inferior position does not mean losing the game). > >If a strong GM cannot find the correct moves in the game, than the noveltie is >good. >If you look the theory development you can find a lot of variations which were >good, but not anymore. >Some of them were proposed by the strongest players of the time... > >We are not able to find perfection in chess yet. > >Sandro The problem is that GM's are weaker than computers so it is possible that the novelty that work in OTB games against a top GM is not going to work against the best programs. It is clear that with the fast improvement in the last years in chess programs we get closer to perfection and I expect computer programs to find many good novelties in the opening if you only give them enough time. For novelties of top GM's that they do not find my guess is that most of them are not the best move and they can work only if the opponent is not ready and is not a top program. 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.