Author: kurt
Date: 16:53:00 11/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2000 at 17:38:58, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 21, 2000 at 14:48:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 21, 2000 at 14:32:51, ERIQ wrote: >> >>>or is either better ?? your thoughts. >>> >>>I was thinking about buying yet another program for analyses of games. >>>Though I like chess tigers playing ablity I wonder it fritz with it's >>>backward way of doing it and ability to add eval's like (!,!?)automaticaly >>>would be better for just looking at game scores. >> >> >>I don't like back to front. It requires that stuff from the end of the >>game be back-filled through the hash table. Here are the two arguments: >> >>1. back to front is better... because you can use stuff happening at the end >>of the game to influence scores and moves earlier in the game. >> >>2. front to back is better because it gives a true reflection of what the >>computer would have seen had _it_ been playing that game directly. >> >>I go along with 2. 1 means you see some bad things quicker than if you use >>2. But it also means that when the critical hash entries get overwritten, >>the scores jump up significantly, which is also misleading. > >I think that the way of learning is not optimal for analysis. >When I analyze a position I want an intelligent program to learn from the tree >that I generate in the same way that I can do it. > >When I have one forced line there is no problem but my experience is that when >there is a tree of 2 lines of some moves I can get the following behaviour. > >1)I analyze line A with a chess program and go back amd the program understand >that line A is not good and prefer line B. > >2)I analyze line B with the program for a long time and go back. >The program understand that line B is not good but instead of prefering line C >it prefers again line A because it forgot that line A is not good. > >I think that it is better not to forget only the positions in the tree that I >generated with the evaluations of them after search and to forget all the other >stuff. > >The tree that I generate is not too big to remember and the problem is that the >programs that I use do not understand that it is the important tree to learn >from it. > >Uri Hi,I am not a programmer,just a long time chess player. Reading your arguments about the pro's and con's of what program has the best method for evaluating a position,let's me belief there is something missing. Conceptionalizing (mental image) of positions which will be advandages and then find ways to get there are human traits. In my opinion this is the human way of playing winning chess. Therefore, please someone describe to me how your program works. Let me guess, opening guide (book) arrived from historical data, search depth mathematical beyond opponents capacity, and knowledge based evaluation,will be your answer,right?. One more thougth- I can visualize a picture of a castle-somewhere-someplace, and can find the means to get there and build it. Computers can not.They must put block on block to get somewhere. You must guide this block laying as to how to do it and stay within its memory capacity. To play chess you gave the instruction to add the sum of its programed evaluation points and try to increase its own total. You do it by making allowable moves and adding a block with an equall or more weight without knowing where to go or where it will end up. Now desribe how will you reach an endgame position which will be andvandages for your program as Capaplanca and other players did. In defence of humans lets remove any opening libary which humans are not allowed to use (while playing OTB)to level the playing field between machine and human. Does anyone know the current ELO rating of chess programs without an opening book? Lets see some arguments about the importance of "BOOK" to any program. Regards, Kurt Widmann
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.