Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: "The Tale of a Small Tree" by M.M.Botvinnik [fragment]

Author: Torstein Hall

Date: 01:57:42 03/10/00

Go up one level in this thread


On March 09, 2000 at 20:58:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On March 09, 2000 at 16:58:07, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote:
>
>>[....]Three Studies
>>Eleven studies had long since been prepared for testing
>>the program---several years earlier I had written in an
>>introduction to a collection of studies by G.Nadareishvili
>>that it was with studies that one should begin experiments.
>>My reasoning was simple---in studies there is forcing tactical
>>play,positionnal evaluation is not needed,and since positional
>>"understanding" was to be the last thing to be put into the program,
>>one should therefore begin with studies...
>>We began with a famous study by Réti.
>>[D]7K/8/k1P5/7p/8/8/8/8 w - -
>>    White to play and draw
>>What could be simpler,and at the same time cleverer than this
>>composition?[....]
>>And so,during December 1976 to January 1977,"Pioneer" solved
>>Réti´s study.We thought that it would all be very simple,but
>>it proved to be highly complicated.Without any positional
>>evaluation,and without the attachment of the endgame library,
>>the tree "disintegrated".The computer had little other work,
>>but hours went by,and still no result.It became clear that
>>"Pioneer" needed help!
>>We took the rule of the square,programmed it in three modifications,
>>put it into the library,and at each node of the tree "Pioneer"
>>received from the library the necessary information.The effect
>>was staggering:the study was solved within 70 minutes,and in the
>>search tree there were only 54 moves.This small "human" tree was
>>first obtained on 28th January 1977---without doubt a significant
>>date in cybernetics.[...]
>>Source:"Selected Games 1967-1970",M.M.Botvinnik,Pergamon Press,1981,
>>pages 299 and 300
>>So it seems that,contrary to widespread belief,Botvinnik thought his
>>computer-chess work to be very important.  JAFM
>
>
>He thought it very important...  most of the rest of us didn't...  as it
>seems that most of the results were faked...

What do base your conclusion that the relults where faked on?

Torstein



This page took 0.01 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.