Author: blass uri
Date: 14:15:33 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 16:31:51, Dann Corbit wrote: >Computers don't play like people at all. > >They formulate no plans, and have no goals except: >snack, snack, snack, snack ... >win (by accident!) > >Tactially, computers are better than any human on the planet. Maybe an ELO of >3000 or higher. Computers are strong at short tactic but if the tactics is deep enough they can be outsearched. There are also some cases in endgames when part of them cannot see simple tactics because of null move prunning that is assuming that a move is not good if it has no threat(this can be a problem only in position of zunzwang and is not a problem in pawn endgames because programs do not use the null move prunning in this type of endgame) Once you get out of the opening book, tactical blunders will be >incredibly rare. Certainly GM's will make tactical blunders at ten times the >rate of a very strong computer program (just a guess -- it might be hundreds or >thousands of times higher). > >Strategically (positionally) computers are club players. Some programmers have >added some board position knowlege, but they obviously don't play like GM's. I do not see how you decide about the positional level of them. They can often play very good positional moves(it may be because of search but it does not change the fact that club players will probably lose against computers even if they can aska computer if their move is a tactical blunder(more than 1/2 pawn error) The game of Steve Ham with black against nimzo is a good example because Steve Ham did not do a clear tactical error(there was no big change in the evaluation of nimzo) but Nimzo is probably going to win the game. It proves that even better than club players can have problems against computers even without tactical mistakes. > >Considering Deep Junior's play at Dortmund, I think open games at 40/2 are no >longer the exclusive property of GM's -- as Junior excelled. Closed positions >did much better, but computer programmers can fight to achieve an open position. > Crafty [for example] has code especially for that purpose (to prevent rows of >locked pawns). I do not like it. I prefer to see computers play for closed positions if this is the right way to play. I am not sure if Crafty's code is going to help it against the best players because they may play for an open position if they see that the position give them an advantage. > >What the computer does, is search very deeply for the most expensive target it >can snack on without repercussion. The strenght in this operation is >phenomenal, with a full 8 moves being possible at correspondence time controls >for many types of position. At such types of calculations, the program will be >relatively flawless. > >What fools a computer, and why? > >A locked position fools a computer. The reason is that it can take a long time >for something to happen. This means you are *forced* to plan, which a computer >is unable to do. If no big goal can be located in 8 full moves, it's play will >be completely aimless. I disagree because there are extensions and the computer can see the goal by the extensions. > >An overpowering massed force attack on the kingside sometimes fools computers. >That's because you may have to lose a lot of material to achieve the goal. The >computer will see you throwing away pieces in your attack and decide "Surely he >won't do that..." by means of the alpha-beta search (and possibly by NULL move). > As long as the actual checkmate is too deep for the computer to see when the >attack is initiated, the computer won't see it. It depends on the program. chess system tal plays for king attack because it has big positional bonus and it can evaluate positions with material advantage as bad. > >Computers can be fooled by pawn races when the board is sparse (but not too >sparse!). If you have paired pawns and a king or trouser pawns and a long way >to go, the opposing computer may not see it (the horizon effect). I have seen >this effect at 40/2 games, but I don't know if a computer can be fooled by this >at correspondence time controls. Once you are down to 6 or 7 chessmen, though, >the computer will play *flawlessly*. This does not mean it will win! If it is >in a losing position, it may still lose. But if you slip and any win for the >opponent is possible it will definitely find it because of the endgame tablebase >files. It depends on the program part of the programs like chessmaster and tiger do not use tablebases. 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.