Author: blass uri
Date: 08:05:29 05/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2000 at 09:44:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 21, 2000 at 23:40:46, blass uri wrote: > >>On May 21, 2000 at 21:19:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 21, 2000 at 19:56:01, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On May 21, 2000 at 19:02:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 21, 2000 at 18:49:00, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 21, 2000 at 17:02:02, Marcos Christensen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 20, 2000 at 07:11:31, Terje Vagle wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1r6/5kp1/RqQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>After 45. Ra6, Fritz suggests Qe3 for black and evaluates the position as 0,94. >>>>>>>>It does not seem to find the famous draw-line for Kasparov. >>>>>>>>10 hours analysis on PIII-600, and 28006383 KN evaluated >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Does any other program find the draw-line? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Terje >>>>>>> I thought that even deeper blue didnt saw the draw! Maybe I'm wrong >>>>>> >>>>>>Deeper blue did not see the draw but it does not change the fact that people >>>>>>expect other programs to be better than deeper blue. >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe that the estimate that program will need 10 years to get to the level >>>>>>of deeper blue is wrong because deeper blue did serious search errors like not >>>>>>seeing the draw and the fact that other programs do the same search error is >>>>>>going to change in the future. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This will _never_ change. Programs will _always_ have "search errors". I don't >>>>>think a program will find that draw in the next 10 years. The reason is pretty >>>>>obvious... to find the quiet queen move deep in the tree means the tree is going >>>>>to be _huge_ since many other "quiet" (but very useless) moves will be searched. >>>> >>>>I know that part of the program can find the draw if you let them to play >>>>against themselves. >>>> >>>>You need only to let programs to play against theirselves them and learn from >>>>the games in order to find the draw. >>> >>>I don't believe this will work. The tree is huge. And _every_ pathway has to >>>be followed to prove the thing is a draw. Just because two programs start at >>>the position and end up in a draw does not mean (a) the position really is a >>>draw; (b) that they will find the draw OTB as who knows if white really puts >>>up the best resistance based on a bunch of shallow searches tacked on to each >>>other end-to-end. >> >>In the case of the last game after you go forward,backward enough times the >>evaluation will be draw because of learning. > > >True... but what if it takes only 25,000,000 games to do this? No,it takes more than one game but only a few games to do this. I remember that I used genius3 to find the draw on p100 and it found all the right moves for black(with the only exception of Qe3 that was only the next best move). The only case when genius3 had problems to find the best move for black was after h4 when h5 is the best move but it could see it after some minutes. When I found 0.00 evaluation I went back and tried to look in the next best move for white in previous move and in most of the cases the evaluation of the next best move was 0.00 so I continued to go back. After some games(less than 25,000,000 and I am sure that less than 10) I found that I cannot improve for white by next best so I was convinced that it is a draw. > > > >> >>White has only a small number of lines when programs believe that it >>has advantage(otherwise people could not prove by chess programs that it is a >>draw). > > >No... white has a large number of lines that have to be proven bad one at a >time... by the time you get way out beyond 30 plies, when you can really only >search to half of that, you have a _lot_ of tree left to work on. more than one line but not a large number of lines (in the first move white only has two lines Qxd6 and Qd7+ and in almost all the moves if I use next beack I see a draw evaluation). > > > > > > >> >>After going forward and backward enough time programs can learn that it is a >>draw. > > >Again I agree. But I believe our definitions of "enough" are way different. >IE I know a person that tried to have crafty solve "wild 7". This is a king >and three pawns vs king and three pawns ending with a well-known way to force >a win by white. White has pawns at a2/b2/c2, black has pawns at f7/g7/h7. >White's king is at d1. Black's king is at e8. White to play and win. He >played thousands of games. learning by "position" as crafty does it, is hurt >by something known as "a local maxima" which stifles learning beyond that >point. This position is way easier to solve than the DB position, yet it seems >impervious to learning approaches. Ande search. Yet it is so easy for a human, >once he understands the idea. (Hint: it is all about zugzwang). This position is not different and I did not say that it is possible to sole it by the way of playing and learning. 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.