Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:15:06 06/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2000 at 11:13:04, leonid wrote: >On June 23, 2000 at 10:25:17, blass uri wrote: > >>On June 23, 2000 at 10:07:15, leonid wrote: >> >>>On June 22, 2000 at 07:30:50, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>Leonid. >>>> >>>>I believe that player with rating 2000 will have no problem to win against only >>>>material evaluation,no extensions,14 plies+opening book. >>>> >>>>I believe that 8 plies of TSCP are worth more than 14 plies of only material >>>>evaluation program. >>>> >>>>It is easy to get programs out of the opening book in a few moves so it is not >>>>going to help much. >>>> >>>>Even without going out of book it will be easy to win the 14 ply program(for >>>>example the 14 ply program will not know that it should push the pawn forwards >>>>and it may do stupid mistakes in the endgame by playing passively). >>>> >>>>Tablebases also are not going to help because the program is going to have no >>>>chance before the very simple endgame. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>When you play quick game you hardly will have that much time to thing about >>>everything. Quick game, that so many people like, is mainly the place where >>>chess program is better that normal human and where "brute force" is so >>>important. >> >>Quick game against humans are not interesting because humans lose against top >>programs of today. >> >>I think that only material evaluation will have problems even in quick games >>against humans(not against most players but certainly agaisnt grandmasters. > >Maybe. > > >>In quick game between computers evaluation is more important and I am sure that >>14 ply brute force with only material evaluation is going to have big problems >>against 12 plies+some knowledge like the knowledge of TSCP. > >Don't know what is TSCP. I am not sure what is the 12 plies+some knowledge. But My God... you need to go to your doctor and see if you have Altzheimer's. (sp?) Don't you remember our LONG, drawn-out e-mail conversations where I constantly insisted that you examine TSCP?? -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.