Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 15:01:42 03/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 10, 2000 at 09:00:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 10, 2000 at 08:59:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 10, 2000 at 04:57:42, Torstein Hall wrote: >> >>>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. >>>>>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 >> >> >>Some PVs he published in the JICCA that were obviously 'faked'... he would >>make a comment that pioneer decided "this variation can be stopped as obviously >>white is winning" but in another almost identical position, pioneer would keep >>searching. Hans Berliner had a very good (if very abrasive) rebuttal article >>that he published in the JICCA in response to Berliner's article. His analysis >>was concise, accurate, and devastating to Berliner's statements... > > >That last "Berliner" should have been Botvinnik of course... The last two, actually.
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.