Author: Don Dailey
Date: 21:18:08 12/31/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 1997 at 14:32:26, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>If your program wins against genius, it cannot be weak !! > >>Yes, this is your joy. When a test program beats Genius or Fritz. Then >>you are happy. Not of course anything to do with feelings about Genius >>or Fritz :) > >Look, if you have a strong enemy or target (climbing the Mount Everest) >and now you try it, and you win it, than you are happy. I don't think >this has anything to do with feelings AGAINST the mount everest. Without >a strong enemy/target, life would be boring. > > >>Now, Thorsten, your position over genius was this: >> >>1. genius is a boring program because it is so accurate and not >>speculative. > >The accuracy and the non-speculative behaviour are connected with the >asymmetric search. >This results in: do nothing but do it well. > >> >>now position has changed to: >> >>2. genius is a boring program because it culls its own possibilties at >>deeper odd plies, and therefore plays less than best moves. > >Culls ? Whats this ? >Deeper plies ?? > >No - it has a mechanism that follows more moves in the plies 2,4,6,8 >than in the plies 1,3,5,7,9. >Maybe you misunderstood me. >Why DEEPER plies ??? > >> >>I think your first position was correct, and the secoond is not. Boring >>is probably too strong a word, and subjective anyway, but Genius is >>accurate, seems to contain very little in the way of speculative stuff; >>and this is what tends to lead to its playing generally quieter >>positions. If you want wild play, you have to do it with steering >>towards these positions by use of evaluation. > >But genius CAN find the good moves if you shift the search 1 ply ! >So the evaluation is maybe different in plies 2,4,6,8 than in plies >1,3,5,7,9. Or maybe the search is different. >What is right ? >The discussion shall find it out. > > >>Your second position makes no sense to me. If genius culls his own >>'quiet' moves at deeper odd plies and promotes / extends his active >>moves / lines; then you'ld expect relatively active lines to be found, >>and relatively active lines to be played, no ? > >You statement does not remind me on my own statements. I have not said >this. Or ? > > >>I mean, if it did the opposite and culled the active moves, and extended >>the dull ones, then we really could argue for overall dullness, no ? > >As I said, this IS NOT my point . I have never said this. > >> >>Play style (Tal or Tarrasch) has to be evaluation based. Search is only >>about what can be found, at what depth, and in what time; not about >>style of play. > >PLaying style has maybe not only to do with evaluation. >Always overseeing some best moves while defending against all threads of >the opponent has NOTHING to do with evaluation ! It is a selectivity >problem of the search and could maybe result in: >boring = non active playing style. I've been following this thread and am listening to both sides concerning how search affects playing style. Here is a question that may help clarify it: Does pure depth affact playing style? Does Genius on a 386 at 16 MHZ play a different style of chess than Genius on a fast Pentium? I believe it will play a very similar style, but just be MUCH stronger. It has been said on these threads that Genius has always played the same style, even in the early days of the Lang programs. Sometimes on these threads we can get into arguments and not really be talking about the same things. What does anyone mean by "playing style?" Can I have the same playing style as Kasporov or some other great player without being a good player? But despite Genius's pruning it is a powerful tactician. And Genius also has a significant full width BASE at which it misses nothing at all. I don't really want to contradict anyone, but it really seems likely to me that very little of its style can be explained by the search. But let's consider this possibility too: Asymetrical evaluation! It's not hard to imagine that a programmer who concieves of the asymetrical search style of Genius might also do similar things with evaluation. King safety: weight heavier if computer king in trouble, passed pawns: opponents more dangerous than computers, Bad pawns: more serious if belonging to computer, etc. In fact I think this could be tested with some carefully constructed tests. Also, doesn't Genius have a full width mode now in some versions? Turn this off and do some positional assymetry tests. Whatever the answer is about positional assymetry, I'll bet Genius will not suddenly become an aggressive attacking player in full width mode. -- Don
This page took 0.01 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.