Author: leonid
Date: 06:01:27 01/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2001 at 21:30:24, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 15, 2001 at 08:16:27, leonid wrote: > >>On January 14, 2001 at 19:55:27, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On January 14, 2001 at 18:57:00, leonid wrote: >>> >>>>On January 14, 2001 at 14:58:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 14, 2001 at 13:57:14, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 14, 2001 at 13:12:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 14, 2001 at 00:33:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 13, 2001 at 23:58:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On January 13, 2001 at 15:03:01, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On January 13, 2001 at 13:38:48, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On January 13, 2001 at 03:17:25, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On January 12, 2001 at 23:05:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>><snipped> >>>>>>>>>>>>>However I can tell you in advance that you will (probably) discover that Chess >>>>>>>>>>>>>Tiger and Gambit Tiger are extremely selective. And the next versions will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>even more selective. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Does it mean that it is not going to find a4 at smaller depth? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I don't care about finding a4. I don't care about solving test suites faster. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I do care about playing stronger, and it's a different story. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Basically the stories are similiar and in most of the cases the better program >>>>>>>>>>in playing games is also better in solving test suites. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I think you are right. But if my program gets better at solving test suites, it >>>>>>>>>will be because I'm trying to make it stronger in real games. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That's why I don't care about finding a4 in this position. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This is a point I have made many times... "cause" and "effect". Is doing >>>>>>>>better on test suites an effect of playing better? (I think so). Or is >>>>>>>>playing better a result of doing better on test suites? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There are other similar cause and effect questions about other things like >>>>>>>>space, mobility, etc... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In the case in question I agree with you that doing better on test suites is a >>>>>>>by product of playing better overall. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I have already noticed it, very clearly, with my own programs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I have never noticed that it worked in the opposite direction, and I can even >>>>>>>say that I have noticed that I could easily weaken my program by trying to tune >>>>>>>it to test suites. >>>>>> >>>>>>The question is if you cannot improve your program by using the weaker engine >>>>>>that you generate only in part of the cases because it is clear that the weaker >>>>>>engine is sometimes better(otherwise it could not be better in test suites). >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>A classic example is "chest". Great at finding mates. But try to wrap a >>>>>front-end around it and play real games. It will get totally mashed. Because >>>>>it is designed to find tactical things and not positional things. >>>> >>>>My question have nothing to do with what you are been talking here but I am too >>>>curious to make it. Is the finding mate in usual chess vocabulary called >>>>"tactical..."? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Leonid. >>> >>> >>> >>>If something has to be called tactical, then finding mates is the thing in >>>question. >>> >>>In theory, given a fast enough computer and enough time, a mate finding program >>>is able to play perfect chess without the need to add any knowledge. >>> >>>But it's only in theory, it has no practical interest. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>Probably I can guess what you mean, in general, and in this sense I agree. >>Probably you want to say that mate could be found by seeing the material echange >>between two sides. Mate existe when one side gain value of the king. This kind >>of program will find the move even if mate is not there. Only for usual move >>value will stay well below the value of the king. >> >>I was surprised about the term because I had in mind mate searching process >>completely indepedent from value echange. Search for mate (ideal search) could >>be done (as well as search for draw) by seeing only two factors in the game. >>First - number of moves. Second - check. And if mate is searched this way, will >>be this old chess term still valid? >> >>Leonid. > > > >I think a definition of a tactical program is a program evaluating positions >only by their material values and trying to optimize the search for this very >simple evaluation. Thanks! Now I see what usually is put into expression of tactical move or program. >It is indeed possible to optimize a search for this, but this kind of search is >useless for real chess, where you have not only the material values (big beans >would say Bob?) but also the positional values (smaller beans, but sometimes >they are big beans). Here I see what it is positional play. It is all beyond big raw material exchange. >A mate finding program is an extreme where the material value can only be -1, 0 >or +1 (or if you prefer 0, 1/2 and 1). Theoretically it could be so. In my mate solver (only number of moves and check is taken in consideration) value presence is obsent. Program give its response with description of move that lead to mate. Four bytes move. Two bytes for describing initial square and two for entry square. Real move is never equal to zero. When it happened, it is a mistake. This signify that black rook left upper left square and entered later into it. So, when the move arrive described as equal to zero, no mate was found for given position. Leonid. > Christophe
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.