Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:01:44 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 06:51:09, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 01:06:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. :) > >and even if you play like kramnik, you are not ACCURATE at all. >even karpov makes mistakes. >a mistake free chess program ? Only a database could be without mistakes. >in life you have to risk. otherwise the others will overtake you. > >>This is true. And I would bet that if he were playing today, most of his >>wild sacrifices would be blown apart by computers. > >and ? this would still not make the computer programs play stronger. >what do you want ? >a program that beats chess-players ? a program that beats chess programs. >A program that beats all ? >The holy grail of computerchess cannot come from programs like fritz/genius >or whatever. programs have to be both, accurate AND understand >sacs like Rc6. otherwise they will never learn how to play chess. >they will always remain dump and fail when humans play moves like Rc6. >how can you handle those moves when you don´t know what they mean. > > >> 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. > >ah - come on. >the todays programs are stupid. the only reason the humans lose to them is, >because any human makes mistakes and has problems to play accurate. >but not because the humans play weaker chess. >kramnik is unable to win a won game against kasparov. not because >he is an idiot or plays weak chess, he played a very good game, kasparov >looked like an idiot of 1700 in that game, but then kramnik lost fade. >and THIS is the reason dump programs beat grandmasters. not because these >programs play strong chess. > >they use the mistakes and the inaccurate moves humans do. >but still a few humans are capable to kill machines. >and when the last human beeing has no chance anymore, and your mega >stupid program has overtaken world-chess, it will still be beaten >by Rc6-programs ! > > >>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. > >? >we know how they do it. they KNOW that Rc6 makes sense. >they learned typical situations like this. like a child learned to talk >by copying. > > >> Chris liked to talk >>about "fog". I personally consider that "hot air". > > >because you don´t understand anything. >its hot hair when you talk about accurate chess. because >accurate chess is impossible. only when you have tablebases. > >CSTal was not hot air. it was the effort to teach a chess program >to leave the path of the quiesence-paradigm. to drive directly into >the fog where you have unbalanced positions with unclear scores. >with different material in all kind of evaluations. >and cstal was able to decide using knowledge which positions are good >and which not. it learned to handle chaos. >this is not hot air. and it did not fail. >cstal was a slow program. and only doing 15.000 NPS on a 400Mhz machine. >but gambit-tiger does 120.000 NPS. This is simply a 100% _bogus_ argument. You like the style of gambit tiger. You have then taken the liberty to cast it in the mold of CSTal. I'll bet the two have _nothing_ in common. Tiger is _still_ a "fast searcher". It _still_ has a simple evaluation when compared to a program like Hiarcs. It is _nothing_ like CSTal. Except perhaps for the style of chess it plays. But it isn't a "new" paradigm cast upon the shadow of Chris. Ask Christophe what he thinks about this assertion of yours... > >this is the new paradigm. not hot air. >by insulting or attacking those , by throwing with mud, you will not be able >to handle Rc6 situations. > >> Probably more useful >>for marketing than anything else. I don't believe it is necessary to emulate >>a human to beat a human. > >BUT >it is necessary to emulate a human to beat the dump machine that >beats the humans ! If that is true, the problem is _hopeless_. Since _nobody_ knows how a human plays chess, yet. Nor does anybody have _any_ idea about how the mind does what it does, yet. It is likely this will never be understood. > > > >> 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. > >than you have to learn what chris/christophe wanted to tell you. I think that is pretty funny. A few evaluation/search changes and suddenly Christophe is the second-coming of Chris W. :) > >>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... > >you must try. not give up. do you have an idea how much time we spent in cstal ? This doesn't matter to me. Ford spend 5 years developing the Edsel in the 1950's, do you know what happened there? :) > >>Hard to adapt until it is available. But once you release it, just sit back >>and watch. > >:-))) > >>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. :) > >:-)))) > >right.
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.