Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:10:46 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 14:05:46, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 09:29:12, Amir Ban wrote: > >Amir, > >I agree that Junior earned its points honestly. I also agree with most you write >about these games. Still, you don't point out anything about the losses against >Kramnik and Piket. And that was exactly what I had in mind writing this thread. >Those two games showed exactly where chess computer programs still can be >improved. And HAVE to be improved, otherwise human GM's will have good chances >to get more points next year. And they will, because they have learnt. > >IMO if you solve most of the problems about king's attacks and closed positions, >then it will be almost impossible for the strongest GM's ta beat a computer. >Because in that case they have no advantage in any type of position anymore. But >in 2000 there is still not much to be done when a clever player manages to block >the position or start a slow attack: The programs do not know about this and >only human mistakes will save them. > >So the crucial question is: When will one of the leading programmer stop >searching for higher NPS, better searching techniques etc? When somebody will >REALLY tackle the 2 problems I mentioned? Because otherwise a computer can still >be beaten in 2010, running on 500 GHz. But as I already mentioned: This is the >computerchess paradox: NOBODY wants to sac NPS for more knowledge. And as long >as nobody wants to quit this 'rule', human GM's are still superior in knowledge >and understanding of the game. > >Jeroen > The speed vs. knowledge dilemma is a false one. It may apply to Rebel and other programs, but it doesn't apply to Junior, where I have a framework to code evaluation stuff virtually for free. Speed is not the issue here, anyway, I agree. Fritz is often quicker in spotting the disaster, but that usually doesn't help it to avoid it. By most accounts, it's easier to drag Fritz than Junior into disaster-prone games. There are relatively simple ways to avoid blocked positions that are usually effective. One of them is assymetric evaluation (another is opening preparation). However I don't like artificial constructions in my program and I prefer to work on improving the evaluation to correct its weak points rather than evade them. Amir
This page took 0.03 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.