Author: Hermano Ecuadoriano
Date: 02:17:03 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2000 at 17:36:00, Hermano Ecuadoriano wrote:
>Thanks.
>I think the smarter program, Tiger, should try to keep more pawns on the board.
>But I can see how its style would be especially difficult for humans: the
>structure keeps moving. The argument keeps changing...
>
>Tiger understands this principle, or method, of the continuous conversion of one
>advantage into another (as opposed to the older idea of the "consistent game").
>So, Tiger plays according to what used to be called the "Soviet School",
>according to my understanding.
>I think Tiger plays like Bronstein played against Botvinnik.
Bronstein, in his excellent book on the 1950 match, said (I paraphrase):
"Above all I sought to avoid the grip of standard technical devices. And
in this respect, I succeeded. In no game did Botvinnik display his usual
orderly conversion of some standard technical advantage into an engame win
(because his technical demonstrations were distracted or diverted by my
irruptions). But in order to achieve this, I wore myself out unnecessarily".
While Botvinnik wanted to have a "discussion" about a weak pawn, Bronstein
wanted continuously to change the subject, ultimately getting compensation
elsewhere. This requires faith, because one's (non-material) dynamic
potential must eventually be transformed into something concrete, like a
checkmate or a new queen, which cannot yet be seen. ("Faith is the
substance of things hoped for", etc.)
Kasparov characterized his victory over Karpov in these terms.
Now I will explain how this applies to Tiger.
In the old days of computer chess, positions of static equilibrium often
arose in games between fairly equal computers. Each sought its own values,
and then conservatively held on to whatever it had achieved. And unless they
(sometimes haphazardly) discovered something else to do, their play would
often become embarassing. I think everyone knows what I mean. Much of
"anti-computer" play is about exposing exactly this.
To escape from this scenario, a random thrashing about is not good enough
(because the opponent is a presumably equally strong calculator). What is
required is some very sophisticated knowlege, some "dynamic savvy".
This is clear: some kind of valuation, be it a number or a "feeling", must be
assigned to the "dynamism" in the position. And the valuation must not be
nonsense: it must consistently "lead" to "something". And here is my claim:
The programmer of Tiger has made a lot of progress here.
(And now this discussion is getting difficult for me because I was always
extremely "conservative" in this context. Since I don't understand it, I must
admire someone who has encoded it successfully, because one must understand
before writing the code.)
If you play through the PGN generously provided, above, I think you will see
this frequent mobile transformation of values. I think it is very
noticeable and very interesting. And I credit Tiger for this, because I already
know how Fritz plays. :)
I drew the first game I played against Rebel 10 because I understood the pawn
structure and was able to keep the game under control. (I don't remember the
time control. PII-300.) I might never draw a similar game against Tiger for
the reasons given above.
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.