Author: Chessfun
Date: 14:55:59 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 17:44:22, blass uri wrote: >On July 19, 2000 at 15:02:14, Amir Ban wrote: > >>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. >>> >> >>Because the problem is not writing evaluation terms but deciding which one's are >>right or formulating them correctly. Not to mention giving them correct weight. >> >>I don't know where many posters in this newsgroup get the idea that "knowledge" >>in chess is obvious and it's just a matter of coding it. > > >I get the idea by watching games of chess system tal. > >My knowledge about this program is that the programmer did not use a lot of time >for giving the correct weights and inspite of this fact I can see it often cause >problems to top programs. > >I read that the programmer chris used Thorsten as a beta tester and Thorsten >decided by watching games about changes in the parameters. > >I can see that chess system tal often wins against other top programs at long >time control games. > >It won Fritz6a with black by 1.e4 a6 and also with white As I recall Tony Miles also beat Karpov when Karpov was World Champion with the St. George. However it was only one game !!. >and junior also has >problems against it in public games(exactly 15 minutes per move) and in one of >them Junior's evaluation is almost 2 pawns for tal. I could be wrong but as I recall Harold Faber posted a series of games with CSTal where it was badly beaten. Thanks.
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.