Author: blass uri
Date: 10:01:42 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 11:06:13, Alvaro Polo wrote: >On July 19, 2000 at 08:14:56, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On July 19, 2000 at 03:55:44, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On July 18, 2000 at 19:10:46, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>2 questions: >>>1)I guess that the fact that you can add evaluation stuff virtually for free >>>in run time make adding knowledge to the evaluation less simple and you need >>>more time to do the design decisions to change the evaluation function relative >>>to other programs. >>> >>>Am I correct? >>> >> >>No > >I'll believe that adding new knowledge to Junior is almost free. I have then two >questions. > >1.- Why isn't then Junior's evaluation much better? Please don't misunderstand >me. I am sure it has a great evaluation but, one may think that when things are >almost free you could just add any bit of knowledge that you might consider >useful under any circumstance and have a really astounding, hypergreat, out of >this world evaluation. I agree. I also do not understand what is the big problem to make Junior6a play the good sacrifice that previous version found against nimzo in WCCC. I understand that Junior reduced the value of pawns and this is the reason for not finding it but it seems that there should be an exception to the rule when king safety is involved. I asked some questions about Junior6a before deciding if to buy it and the fact that Junior6a cannot find the good sacrifice of previous versions is one of the reasons that I decided not to buy it. It is possible that there are cases that your way of testing of changes in the evaluation is not correct. Thorsten explained that chess system tal is sometimes wrong in evaluating and the main line can include wrong sacrifices but the fact that it has big evaluation terms can encourage it to go for the right positions and in tournament time control when it is in the right positions it can see by search that the sacrifice is wrong. It is impossible to test a change by playing many tournament time control games but I think that watching some games can give impression if something is positive and that you should also use your feeling based on watching some tournament time control games. I have the impression based on watching games that when there is king safety problems Junior6a does not evaluate correctly knight or bishop vs pawns situations. Uri
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.