Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:37:11 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 17:15:33, blass uri wrote: >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. Your post raises some very good issues, and also, I think you know better than me because I have never played at correspondence rates against a computer since a very long time! (I used to play EdChess that way by letting the computer (a 286) think all night and then I would move in the morning. I think some of the general principles do bear out at 40/2 (e.g. the GM's did much better using closed positions than using open positions). However, at correspondence time controls, I don't know if the ideas still work. I *do* know that some strategies that do work at blitz do *not* work at 40/2.
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.