Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 18:23:59 06/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
I believe that in the CCC context PC is always "personal computer". As well as TSCP. Or nps. Or PV. Eugene On June 23, 2000 at 20:33:39, leonid wrote: >On June 23, 2000 at 14:15:06, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>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 > >Tom, do you know what is PC? > >PC - personal computer? > >PC - Partie Communiste? > >PC - Partie Concervative? > >Leonid.
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.