Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 10:34:50 06/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2000 at 06:27:09, leonid wrote: >On June 22, 2000 at 02:54:43, blass uri wrote: > >>On June 21, 2000 at 21:18:07, leonid wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 2000 at 19:03:40, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On June 21, 2000 at 17:07:06, leonid wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 21, 2000 at 13:38:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>If you think that material-only evaluation programs are good for anything, >>>>>>you're sadly mistaken. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I said only that material evaluation is evaluation about everything in principe. >>>>>About tactics... or just say it. I agree that in actual state of hardware it is >>>>>not enough have only material evaluation, but its importance will grow as >>>>>rapidly as hardware capacity will improve. Very soon program that have in its >>>> >>>>Only evaluating material has zero importance. Why would you do it when you can >>>>evaluate material AND positional terms with no penalty? Besides, material is >>>>just a rule of thumb, just like any positional term. Thinking that you can make >>>>a good program by only considering material is absurd, no matter how fast your >>>>computer is. >>>>-Tom >>> >>>Do we speak about my program or about general idea? If we speak about my program >>>it is not that interesting, since we will talk only about one program in >>>particular. When we speak about general idea, yes, material echange can say >>>everything. Only through the material echange you can find mate or draw. By the >>>same mean you can find all other move in the game, name it positional, tactical >>>or otherwise. We can talk how much computer power we need for the best program >>>right now to find this or other kind of move, but this is something else. Idea >>>is simple - material echange do everything and everywhere. In chess game logic >>>is enough to see everything in it from beginning up to the end. >>> >>>Leonid. >> >>Thoretically you are right but practically > >So, we say the same. > >>Tom is right that material only is absurd > >Here it is only the game of the words but actually we are saying the same. > >>You do not need material but you need only the 32 piece tablebases. >> >>It is theoretically possible. > >>If the computer dimensions are 1000,000 kilometers*1000000 kilometers*1000000 >>kilometers and if it can remember one position in 1/10000 milimeter*1/10000 >>milimeter*1/10000 milmeter then it can remember 10^48 positions >>and I know that it is not bigger than the number of legal positions in chess >> >>Of course this idea is absurd like the idea of material only evaluation. >> >>Uri > >Ura, when I tryed to write my first logic for solving the mate I was curious for >how long ahead people can see (and rapidly) when the mate is there. I found that >actually it is not that far away, only some 6 or 8 plies deep. Biggest part of >all "genious, "incredible", "magnificent" move, found by the best champion of >the world, in real game, during the chapionship were very specifique. Almost all >of them was instantly solvable by so called "quick mate solving logic" and was >in the depth between 10 and 14 plies. If human can see actually all moves in the >game and rapidly, beyond mate and draw, at the same depth as it is for mate, we >are close to be there. Very soon brute force search for material echange (no >extensions) will be able to go easely 8 plies deep in around 1 second. This >could permit to search pretty well by quick logic 14 plies deep to make good >move. The rest in the game could be easely available by using the database for >beginning and the end of the game. The extras will be more for overkill that by >making the program strong. Please stop saying "quick logic" because nobody knows what it means. You're just wasting everybody's time. Even if you search 14 plies deep with material-only evaluation, you will still get crap moves. Why don't you just try this with your program? It will be instantly clear that material-only produces crap moves no matter what. -Tom
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.