Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:30:00 11/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2000 at 02:35:39, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On November 28, 2000 at 00:12:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 27, 2000 at 22:10:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On November 27, 2000 at 21:52:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>What I was referring to was playing the right move with a score that is < 0, >>>>when the move is a _winning_ move. If the program _knows_ it is winning, it >>>>will have a positive score... If it doesn't know this, it is playing it for >>>>the wrong reason. >>> >>>That's just a question of depth since the score is obviously improving. When a >>>program is improving its score by chosing the right moves (to a certain extent >>>as inaccuracy tends to creep in the further you go in the PV), then I consider >>>it to be the right reason. >>> >>>If Nxh6 had been the only correct move in the PV, but the score > 0, then it's a >>>right move for the wrong reason to me. The score will improve if the PV keeps on >>>approaching the correct variation. You're doing a TC imitation by staring at the >>>score IMHO. >>> >>>What score would imply "right reason" at depth 11? >>> >>>Mogens. >> >> >>I disagree. There have been multiple cases of programs being specifically >>tuned to play certain moves in test positions. The PV was "close" but missed >>the important move that made the score _really_ improve. >> >>Whether that happened in this case or not, I have no idea. But when someone >>says "white to play and _win_" and the program plays the right move but with >>a score that says "if I could find a repetition I would take it in a heartbeat" >>then I remain skeptical of its ability to really understand what is going on. >>And suspect it is very likely that it may well go wrong... > >Why do we have some weird controversy any time this stuff gets discussed? > >1) There has never been any evidence presented that anyone has tuned for any of >these Nolot positions ever. Other test suites perhaps, but Nolot, no. I didn't say anybody had. I said that this issue has come up often enough to make me skeptical of results that have the right move, wrong score. I have the same criticism for my program too, of course. But white to play and win does not mean a score of -.2 shows it knows what it is doing... > >2) Many of these positions have been found by computers for a long time, >including this one. This is one of the easier ones to "see". To use a Clintonism, "it depends on what you mean by found." There are too many examples of a program finding the right move, with the wrong eval, then changing to something else after a longer search... If the program sees +4, then it likely won't change unless it finds something even better that is also going to win convincingly. But if it says -.2, it is likely that in a tactical thread, it will veer off to take a perpetual, since draw would be better than -.2... > >3) I have never seen any "winning" PV in this position produced by a program. >Everyone finds this eventually, with a minus score. Hsu says they found a win >with DT, but doesn't provide the score. With no winning score, I wouldn't say it is "solved". It might not be winning, or the program(s) might not be able to find the win. Just finding the right move is a dangerous thing... if it isn't for the right reason. > >4) I don't think that anyone made any claims that any program was Joe Super-Stud >because it found a "draw" or "surviving" PV in this position. I didn't make any claim either, other than that it isn't very convincing that a program plays the right move but has a bad score... > >Within the past month or so, you have insinuated dishonesty or evil intent a >number of times, or at least you've brought up the issue and directed several >threads away from their initial topic and on to issues of the integrity of the >individual in question. You've done this with little or no evidence beyond the >considerable weight that your name carries. And when it has been pointed out to >you that you've done this, it has been extremely difficult to get you to >retreat, even the slightest bit, from these damaging insinuations. And as far >as I can tell you've been wrong in every case. I don't know what you are talking about in this case. I didn't imply any dishonesty, nor accuse anybody of _anything_. I simply said that there have been so many cases of right move wrong score, some due to hand tuning for a specific problem by a specific author, some due to simply misunderstanding the position enough to make the right move for the wrong reason. As far as the "damaging insinuations" I only recall one thread where this came up. Can you point to others? > >There is no logical reason for you to bring up this topic with regard to this >program and this test position. All you are doing is haphazardly smearing the >Gandalf author, and I have no idea why you could mean to do this. > >bruce I didn't intend to smear _anybody_. I did intend to point out that if a program chooses the right move for the wrong reason, I don't consider _that_ solving the position. Nothing more. Nothing less. I don't see your point here, and I don't see how anything I said would "smear the author."
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.