Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes
Date: 05:55:35 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 01:35:52, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 01:06:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 15, 2000 at 23:44:03, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On October 15, 2000 at 23:25:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 15, 2000 at 22:41:31, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 15, 2000 at 21:35:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 14, 2000 at 16:15:17, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>[Event "Open Dutch CC 2000"] >>>>>>>[Site "Leiden NED"] >>>>>>>[Date "2000.10.14"] >>>>>>>[Round "02"] >>>>>>>[White "Tiger"] >>>>>>>[Black "Nimzo 8"] >>>>>>>[Result "1-0"] >>>>>>>[ECO "D20"] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.Bxc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Nc6 7.Ne2 Bf5 >>>>>>>8.Nbc3 e6 9.a3 Qd7 10.O-O Be7 11.Be3 O-O-O 12.Rc1 f6 13.exf6 gxf6 >>>>>>>14.Na4 Nd5 15.Bc4 Na5 16.Ba2 Bg4 17.Nac3 Nxc3 18.Rxc3 Kb8 19.f3 Bh5 >>>>>>>20.b4 Nc6 21.b5 Na5 22.Qa4 b6 23.Nf4 Bf7 24.Rfc1 Bd6 25.Nd3 Rhg8 >>>>>>>26.Nc5 Bxc5 27.dxc5 e5 28.Bxf7 Qxf7 29.cxb6 cxb6 30.Qc2 Qg6 31.Qa2 f5 >>>>>>>32.Kh1 f4 33.Bg1 h5 34.Qe2 Qf6 35.a4 h4 36.h3 Qg5 37.R1c2 Rd7 >>>>>>>38.Qe1 Rdg7 39.Qe4 Rd7 40.Qe2 Rgd8 41.Qe1 Qe7 42.Qe4 Qg5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Here the thing begins ! >>>>>>>Rc6 is an easy move for Gambit-Tiger. It KNOWS that these kind >>>>>>>of moves are playable. and it gives the rook to make the bishop >>>>>>>on g1 active. >>>>>>>no search-based chess program can see this IMO. >>>>>>>this is the paradigm-shift. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>gambit-tiger believes that this move could make it. >>>>>>>it is not KNOWING it. it trusts the evaluations and the >>>>>>>knowledge it has. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>thats chris whittingtons way. here you see christophe >>>>>>>walking in the foot-steps of chris... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>leaving the hyatt-paradigm. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I have to disagree. It is not hard to tune my (or any other) program to >>>>>>play this move. If you watch gambit tiger play, it has some _outrageous_ >>>>>>scores. In a game on ICC the other night, Crafty was at -.2, gambit tiger >>>>>>was at +3.2... would you care to guess _which_ was right? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Would you care to guess what is the current score of Gambit Tiger against Crafty >>>>>(including Crafties with an outrageous hardware advantage)? >>>>> >>>>>It's easy to laugh about a lost attack, but in this case it seems I'm going to >>>>>laugh more often than you will. >>>> >>>>That remains to be seen. I have watched my share of games where you were >>>>reporting +3, then 2, then suddenly +.5 and so forth. I Wasn't being >>>>negative about your program. I was being negative about this so-called >>>>"paradigm shift" that Thorsten likes to mention. Such a shift is _not_ >>>>hard to do. CSTal did it. But then making it _work_ is something else. >>>> >>>>If you do so, fine. But I have seen my share of evidence that says +3.0 >>>>scores when material is _even_ is _dangerous_. +1? Maybe. Even +2. But >>>>to give up a piece for an attack that might well fall flat is nice for wild >>>>chess, but I don't believe it will work for _consistent_ chess. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>If by consistent you mean boring, then I have to agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Feel free to prove me wrong of course. I have been pretty speculative in my >>>>own way, contrary to what Thorsten might think. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>So be a little bit more, the users of Crafty will like it. >>> >>>We are not going to spend the rest of our lifes looking at Genius-style chess >>>programs, are we? >>> >>> >> >>Maybe. IE I wouldn't mind writing a program that everyone said played like >>Karpov. He was one of the best ever. Boring? Yep. Consistent? That too. >>I pulled for Kasparov when they first met, because I liked the wild style. >>But I began to see the beauty in boring, consistent, mistake-free chess as >>well. :) > > > > >I know. I think Chess Tiger 12 plays rather "consistent". > >But Gambit Tiger is stronger (from an objective point of view, it has been tried >against various opponents), and is much more fun to watch. > >I prefer to go in that direction now. Of course I'm not sure I'll succeed. > > > > > >>>>>If it's not hard to "tune" your program to play moves like 43.Rc6 in >>>>>Nimzo8-Gambit, then why don't you do it right now? >>>>> >>>>>Do it, Bob. Do it right now. And let your overtuned version meet Gambit Tiger. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Why would I want to do this? Just because you say so? I don't like that >>>>type of chess from a machine. Because I _know_ that they don't "understand". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>There are strong chess players, including Tal for example, who have said that >>>they have sometimes played sacrifices just because they felt it would work. >> >>This is true. And I would bet that if he were playing today, most of his >>wild sacrifices would be blown apart by computers. Here is one of Tal's wildest games,with an early Queen sacrifice and all: Bobotsov-Tal,1958 [it can be retrieved from www.chesslab.com,for instance] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Nge2 c5 7.Be3 Nbd7 8.Qd2 a6 9.O-O-O Qa5 10.Kb1 b5 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.Qxa5 Nxe3 13.Rc1 Nxc4 14.Rxc4 bxc4 15.Nc1 Rb8 16.Bxc4 Nb6 17.Bb3 Bxd4 18.Qd2 Bg7 19.Ne2 c4 20.Bc2 c3 21.Qd3 cxb2 22.Nd4 Bd7 23.Rd1 Rfc8 24.Bb3 Na4 25.Bxa4 Bxa4 26.Nb3 Rc3 27.Qxa6 Bxb3 28.axb3 Rbc8 29.Qa3 Rc1+ 30.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 0-1 Can today's computers refute Tal's daring play? JAFM > > > >Ok, now imagine a deep searching computer and all its tactical accuracy trying >to play this way. > >We must try! We are not going to sit here and be satisfied with our current way >of doing it! > > > > > >> If he were even able to >>reach those kinds of wild positions. I would certainly like to see it happen. >>We've had a couple of what I would call tal-like anti-computer players on ICC. >>IMOrlov is one that comes to mind. Wildly tactical. Kills humans, including >>lots of GM players (at fast time controls). Computers hand him his head in >>a sack, however. > > > >Yes, but if it is a computer doing the sacs, the story is different. > >You can expect that it works even better against humans, and maybe work against >"classical" programs as well. > >At least it's worth a serious try. Not just pushing the knob of the king safety >value. > > > > > >>>Human players think this way, we could maybe learn the lesson. >>> >> >>That is the holy grail of computer chess. But until we have some idea how >>the human does it, it is not going to be easy to do. > > > > >I don't think so. We still don't understand how human players can compute a 12 >plies deep line with a computing device that searches 1 to 2 moves per second, >but we can program a computer to do it. > >So maybe we can also write a program that creates good attacks without fully >understanding how the human brain evaluates attacks. > > > > > > >> Chris liked to talk >>about "fog". I personally consider that "hot air". Probably more useful >>for marketing than anything else. I don't believe it is necessary to emulate >>a human to beat a human. > > > > >So do I. > > > > > >> The computer doesn't work like the brain in any way >>I can think of. I don't envision a program doing the same. Producing the >>same result? Of course. But in the same way? We don't even know what that >>"way" is after 30 years of people studying it from every angle imaginable. > > > > >It's different from what the human brain does. Even if the human brain >identifies what's happening as very interesting. > > > > > > >>>It is known since ages that a strong king attack can be worth more than a piece. >>> >>>If a chess program is not able to value a strong king attack this high, then it >>>is missing chess knowledge that even a 1700 elo player has. >>> >> >> >>It all depends on the definition of "strong". Which was my point. IMHO, >>"strong" is not understood by programs yet. Better? Maybe. But not good >>enough by any measure. Against humans? Probably works better than when playing >>a computer. But even GMs will recognize if "strong" is not well-defined. I >>have had some great attacking versions, some planned, some by accident. And >>all scored early successes against humans. But most got "figured out" by the >>better players and they then had a feast... > > > > >Each lost game teaches something. > >Then it is a matter of hard work. > > > > > >>>>And relying on 'I hope" is dangerous. Perhaps your search is good enough to >>>>weed out some of the failures, I don't know. But it isn't weeding out anywhere >>>>near all of this stuff. >>>> >>>>If you can beat my ears off, so be it. But don't be surprised when some start >>>>taking advantage of such 'speculation'. It isn't difficult... CSTal was >>>>sort of scarey at first. Then it because sort of boring... >>> >>> >>> >>>I'm waiting for others to adapt. >> >> >>Hard to adapt until it is available. But once you release it, just sit back >>and watch. > > > > >You have told me the same when Rebel-Tiger I has been released last year. :) > >Others have said the same. The theory was that Chess Tiger 12 had not been >released, and that was an unfair advantage because the competition had no >opportunity to "tune" against it. > >Well one year after I still don't see any program outplaying it badly... > > > > > > >>>>>> I will be more >>>>>>impressed when I see lots of such moves where _most_ are right... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I will be impressed when I see Crafty playing just ONE move of thing kind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>I will be more impressed by other things. IE I have seen GM's have it >>>>easier with gambit tiger than with regular tiger. based on some games >>>>on ICC. They don't seem to be afraid of what seem to be the typical types >>>>of king safety analysis dealing with open files and pieces close to the >>>>king... If they are convinced the attack is going nowhere, they will snap >>>>up the piece and take it home... And they have. No, I don't know how the >>>>new program is doing vs all players. But it doesn't seem to be significantly >>>>better or worse than any other new program, IMHO. >>>> >>>>We will see, I suppose... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Hey, this is Gambit Tiger 1.0. >>> >>>This engine is almost not tuned at all. It was supposed to be just a bonus for >>>the Rebel 11 CD! >>> >>> >>> >> >>As I said, I am _not_ trying to put the thing down at all. Just bring a bit >>of reason into a discussion that makes it sound unbeatable. Everyone likes that >>style of play. The SuperConstellation used to do it all the time. But then >>the weaknesses begin to show up. It is bad enough to create a positional >>weakness for yourself. But to do so a piece down can be quite dangerous. :) > > > > >The difference is that now computers can see deeper. I believe it makes a >difference, but I cannot prove it at this time. We will see. > > > > > Christophe > > > > > > >>>>>> IE CSTal >>>>>>finds great looking moves that often backfire. Too often. >>>>>> >>>>>>Speculation is one thing. Accuracy is another. There _is_ a middle >>>>>>ground... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>is there any chess program playing Rc6 ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>brilliant. i hope more will follow. >>>>>>>because this steps into a new quality in computerchess. >>>>>>>the moment when chess programs BELIEVE !!!! instead of knowing. >>>>>>>or seeing in the tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This is so inherently dangerous it is obvious. Just because you _believe_ >>>>>>you can walk on water doesn't make it so. You had better _know_... If you >>>>>>are only 10 feet from shore, you might not drown. In the middle of the Pacific, >>>>>>you had better be _certain_ you can walk... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Now I understand better what Chris Whittington calls "the Hyatt paradigm". :) >>>>> >>>>>I'm sorry, I never thought I would one day share CW's point of view, but you are >>>>>pushing me in that direction... >>>>> >>>>>Gambit Tiger was not certain that 43.Rc6 was winning. Actually it might even >>>>>turn out that this move is incorrect. I don't know. >>>>> >>>>>And you know what? I DON'T CARE. >>>>> >>>>>The only thing that matters is that the opponent has been UNABLE to show it was >>>>>incorrect. >>>>> >>>>>That's where computer chess finally meets human chess. >>>>> >>>>>If your program can't swim, then I guess it's better for it to stay close to the >>>>>shore. >>>>> >>>>>Mine is learning how to swim. There are sexy girls on the islands, I guess he >>>>>wants to go there. ;) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>> >>>> >>>>There is also deep water. I'm only aware of _one_ person that was able >>>>to successfully walk on water. Some 2,000 years ago. :) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Oh yes. His name began with the letters "C", "H", "R", "I", "S"... >>> >>>Mmh... Now I'm in deep water. :) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >> >>Yep. :)
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.