Author: walter irvin
Date: 07:06:31 10/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2000 at 19:50:42, Uri Blass wrote:
>On October 22, 2000 at 18:04:35, Thorsten Czub wrote:
><snipped>
>>ok - IMO what christophe has done is THE FIRST STEP.
>>He had made tiger into a gambit-tiger who is not longer
>>searching for SOMETHING in the tree, hoping to find anything,
>>but to direct the program into chaos, into action, into
>>the mirror-world where positions are not EXACT and also
>>it does not interest how the score is, but it interest
>>what you can make out of the position: i mean: the chances
>>of a position.
>
>I do not believe it
>GambitTiger like other programs plays the move with the highest score.
>
>There are sometimes big positional scores for king attack when other programs do
>not have the big positional scores and are based mainly on material scores but
>it does not change the fact that gambit plays the move that gives the highest
>score from gambit's point of view.
>
><snipped>
>>For a classical program, to keep the search fast, the evaluation at each
>>node must, of necessity, be brief. This evaluation is usually no more
>>than a weighting given for each piece on each square (for example a
>>knight might be worth 3.3 pawns on centre squares and 2.9 pawns on edge
>>squares) and evaluation of the pawn structure for doubled pawns, passed
>>pawns etc.. The classical pre-processing function looks for themes in
>>the position and adjusts the square weightings accordingly - for
>>example, if a knight is attacking a square next to the king, then
>>increase the weighting for all the squares that the queen could
>>cooperate with the knight in making a king attack, increase the knight
>>weighting to keep it on the original square, increase other cooperating
>>piece weightings and so on. There is no doubt that this approach works
>>but it cannot be the way forward. Pre-process ing knowledge becomes more
>>stupid with increasing search depth, as positions deep in the search
>>tree becomes more removed from the assumptions of the original position,
>>the square weighting adjustments become more irrelevant (why weight the
>>squares for the queen after the cooperating knight has been removed from
>>the board ?- but the classical paradigm doesn't understand that !). I
>>call this type of search Artificial Stupidity (AS). Since all the
>>current programs operate in this way, ELO grading lists and inter-program
>>tournaments are no more than a reflection of the partially-sighted
>>playing the blind, whose AS algorithm is most efficient, but it is not
>>chess.
>
>I know that a lot of chess programs do not operate in this way.
>Chris says that programs use only preprocessor and piece square tables+pawn
>structure evaluation.
>
>It is not close to be right.
>
><snipped>
> >Dynamic knowledge v. Combinational knowledge
>>============================================
>>
>>Oxford Softworks CCS2-v9.0
>>White: CCS2 486/33
>>Black: Genius2 486/33
>>Venue: 1 minute per move
>>Comment: 1-0
>>
>>1. e4 e6
>>2. d4 d5 1
>>3. Nc3 Nf6 3
>>4. Bg5 Be7 5
>>5. e5 Nfd7 8
>>6. h4 Bxg5
>>7. hxg5 { CCS2's opening book ends }
>> .... Qxg5
>>8. Nf3 Qd8 { Genius2's opening book ends }
>>9. Bd3 h6
>>10. Qd2 { CCS2's dynamic knowledge - preventing O-O because
>> of the threat of Rxh6 }
>> .... c5
>>11. Nb5 O-O { Catastrophic - any reasonable club player can
>> see this move is a disaster, but Genius2 has no
>> dynamic knowledge, there is no immediate mate so Genius2
>> thinks all is ok ! }
>
>The position after Nb5 is a good test position
>The target is to avoid 0-0
>[D]rnbqk2r/pp1n1pp1/4p2p/1NppP3/3P4/3B1N2/PPPQ1PP1/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 1
>
>Some programs like Crafty may need some minutes but I believe that on fast
>hardware all the top programs have no problem to avoid 0-0.
>
>Part of them like Fritz5.32 never consider 0-0 as best.
if you really believe what you are saying then this statement must be true .
1.there is not much use for chess programmers anymore because all you have to do
is tweak the eval and presto 150 elo .
2.that crafty should be as strong or stronger than gamit tiger with the right
eval changes .
unless there there really is a new programming mini break thru in the making .
>
>
>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.