Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 22:23:08 02/20/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2006 at 18:17:28, Uri Blass wrote: >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. I meant strong GMs...over 2700 and not GMs in general. They are strategically much stronger than current engines. > >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. WE are far away from perfection...to be close to that computer should search at least 64/126 in the early stage of the game in most openings...we are far from that. > >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. Sometimes they do so, but they are also moving the theory and not the computers...computers rely on the book makers which refine and test variations. > >Uri Sandro
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.