Author: blass uri
Date: 12:31:24 06/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2000 at 13:38:08, leonid wrote: >On June 20, 2000 at 08:39:38, blass uri wrote: > >>On June 20, 2000 at 07:48:31, leonid wrote: >> >>>On June 19, 2000 at 19:52:46, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On June 19, 2000 at 19:38:10, leonid wrote: >>>> >>>>>Anyway, if simple 12 plies deep search is still not enough, much deeper search >>>>>should give correct answer. Analysis in this situation is just like learning >>>>>about our Moon through telescope. In practical and actual moment it almost >>>>>unique way to know something about this satellite. But the best way is to go >>>>>there personally. Material echange logic in chess is just like going to the >>>>>Moon. Expensive but best way possible. >>>> >>>>I don't understand what you mean by material exchange logic. >>>> >>>>Your logic to find material wins should be the same as your logic to find >>>>positional wins, except for the evaluation function. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>>Material echange I use in order of not saying, what is so natural for me to say, >>> "positional logic". For me this part of the logic (contrary to the "mate >>>solving logic". Mate solving logic search for mate only and don't use any >>>material avaluation) calculate how much material could be gain after given move >>>at given depth. For instance, given move, after its deposition in upper ply, >>>give 8000 and later, 8 plies deep give -2000. Final result is 6000. This >>>evaluation say me practically everything about position. Problem is only that >>>number of plies that you can search, after the time that you have, is limited. >>> >>>Leonid. > >>You could also say: >>Mate or not mate say to you practically everything about the position. >>Problem is only that number of plies that you can search is limited but if you >>search deep enough you can decide if the position is a draw(no possible mate) or >>a win for one side. >> >>I do not think that it is correct because practically you cannot search deep >>enough and for the same reason only material evaluation tells you practically >>almost nothing about the position(I agree that theoretically it can tell you >>everything but I am not going to live 10000000000000000000000 years to see it). >> >>Uri > >Logic that see in what way will go material echange (who will take how much) can >say everything in perfect way, including mate or draw. Reason for having two >logics is mainly technical, consideration of speed and perfection. Mate logic, >that goes in its thinking only after two factors: check and numbers of moves, >permit easely verifiable and perfect logic that find mates (or draw). It is hard to understand your last sentence and maybe part of the misunderstanding is because of wrong translation to english(English is not my first language but I believe that I know enough to not translate words in the wrong way) Translating words by a dictionary when you never learned the language can cause a misunderstanding(it is possible that the same word in one language has more than one meaning and when you tanslate it by a dictionary you get the wrong meaning). I understand that when you say logic you mean to a chess program. (the word logic in english does not mean a program and it is about the brain I can say that a person does illogical move in chess if the move does not make sense). I guess that you mean: It is easy to discover bugs in programs that consider only if there is checkmate in a fixed number of movesand these programs are perfect for finding mates or draws. Logic that >is based on echange of material is prone to mistake and very difficult to be >verified for bugs. Slight change in value given to each piece on the board can >change instantly its final result. > >Now practical side of all this. Search done by mate solving logic and logic that >look into material echange is limited in time for each game, but so is for >human. In this moment mate solving logic see better and find sonner mate on the >board that every world champion can see. It don't make mistake as human make. I >do remember few books with mate positions that had more that few mistakes in it. >One book that I used was printed in the 30th. Few books that was printed in the >80 had many mistakes as well. Human is no more the best to recognize rapidly >mate in chess game. > >Positional logic is still not as performant as mate solving logic. But it could >be that its basic thinking is also as perfect as in mate solving logic. Actual >computer power is not enough to make it uniquely based on its raw speed, that is >probably is as good as it could be. Meantime, all the endless astuce of the weak >must be implement to make it work even now. I do not understand the meaning of all the endless astuce of the weak. I also do not see the point of "computer power is not enough" because it will probably never be enough for chess in the next 1000 years if you do not evaluate things that are not material. Uri
This page took 0.02 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.