Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 11:32:34 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 13:29:29, Amir Ban wrote: >On December 12, 1999 at 09:48:31, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >Dear Enrique, > >I'm surprised to read that you subscribe to this fast vs. knowledge nonsense, >which is as false as it is popular. The simple truth is that all programs are as >fast as their author can make them, and have as much knowledge as their author >practically knows how to put in them. Hi! I fully agree with you in this knowledge vs speed debate. Most people are victims of there own sweet-dreams in this debate. A couple of years ago we tried a big positional test and the winner was Nimzo known as a fast but dumb searcher. A couple of years ago I playd two tournaments without books with the best programs from those days. Fritz3 won both tournaments before Genius and Mchess, Rebel, Hiarcs and so on. Most people want to believe in something and a computer with "good knowledge" must be more human-like, so it´s easy to support this thesis. Bertil > >>Mind you, I also think that without intuitions, whatever that is, exact, >>verifiable thinking tends to sterility, so from my let's call it feminine >>intuition (astrologically I am the intuitive cancer, double cancer in fact, soon >>triple I guess :(, what crap this astrology), and going back to this comp-comp >>vs. human-comp discussion, I sometimes wonder. To make it short, when looking at >>the Rebel-Baburin and Rebel Sherbakov games, I "know" that the fast finders >>couldn't play as well as Rebel. > >Untrue. J6 finds the critical choices in Rebel - Sherbakov to be rather easy, >and in my opinion understands Baburin - Rebel better than Rebel. It thinks that >at some points Baburin mishandled a white advantage (e.g. 28. Qc7 ?). > >>Following the games with Fritz 6 was >>overwhelming evidence in this direction. > >I understand it was much too optimistic for black, but then, so was Rebel, or so >we are told. All programs are stupid when their evaluation is way off. This >happens to Hiarcs, or every other vaunted "knowledge" program, quite often. >Fritz, by the way, often shows understanding that would make the so-called >knowledge programs green. > > > On the other hand, why this alleged >>positional, human-like (?) superiority wouldn't also show up in comp-comp games, >>so "knowledgeable" computers would compensate with it for their slower tactical >>speed? Because it doesn't compensate and comp-comp is decided by tactics. > >That's wrong. Computers kill other computers all the time when their opponent >doesn't understand a position. It compensates for order of magnitude in speed. > >>Is >>this "superior" understanding only the adaptation of a program to human playing, >>with the only value of making human life more miserable in chess, and we believe >>this anthropocentric approach greater? Is there really a difference between >>comp-comp and human-comp? So what's up? I really wish we would be less of a >>flower collector and more of a botanist. >> > >Just my opinion. > >Amir
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.