Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:12:35 04/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 1998 at 13:03:17, Mats Winther wrote: >On April 14, 1998 at 03:10:44, Jouni Uski wrote: > >>I think Mats's posting are nonsense! If Fritz5 beats all opponents it >>doesn't matter any if moves are found by speed or knowledge. Remember Deep >>Blue's victory over Kasparov - speed was of course the main reason for fine >>performance. > >My point is that one doesn't always find the same move when using speed >as when using knowledge (no matter how speedy the computer is). > >Look at a Petrosian game where he makes a positional sacrifice (a rook >against a knight). Petrosian wins this game against a strong >grandmaster. >Would Fritz5 make the same move? Probably not. Fritz5 will cut off that >whole variation tree. He doesn't consider it much since Fritz5 has a >materialist view of chess (and must have since he is a computer). >But actually, that positional sacrifice may be the best move in that >position. > >There is a materialist side of chess, but there is also a positional >side of chess. These sides complement each other. There is a side of >chess that has nothing to do with computational force. > >To create really good chess (like Petrosian) one must integrate both >these sides. I happen to think that Petrosian plays better chess than >Fritz5 >although their ratings are about the same. I have the right to have this >view of chess. Why is this nonsense? Why does it create so much disgust >in this newsgroup? > >I am quite aware that Fritz5 still might have won that game by tactical >trickery later in the game (preferably when the grandmaster is in time >trouble). But I have studied several hundreds of Petrosian's games and >they have convinced me that there are more to chess than move counting. > >Probably it would be very hard to create a chess engine that does not >cut off that variation tree but instead takes the positional sacrifice >into consideration. It's hard for a computer to realize it's good since >Petrosian doesn't regain the material later in the variation tree. >His play has something else is mind. > >In several Petrosian games I have seen a positional mastery that goes >far >beyond the positional sacrifice level. These moves will never be done by >a program. A human (Petrosian) has a pattern seeing derived from >experience. So he can make moves that a computer can never do because >the >latter must use simple rules plus computation. The computer is forced to >cut off variation trees since it is beyond his understanding that these >can be good. And this understanding can never be built in because the >computer does not have that intelligent pattern seeing combined with >strategical ideas created for the moment (which requires intelligence). >Again, it's not possible to, by way of computation, arrive at that >sophisticated positional plan. This is because there a two sides of >chess. >Some sophisticated positional qualities cannot be reached by >computational >force. > >You simply underestimate the value of positional chess. With positional >chess one makes other moves than with computational chess. My idea in >this >discussion is that I would like to see the computers make more >positional >moves, positional sacrifices etcetera. This idea is heretic and makes me >an outcast. > >The ideas above is my credo in computer chess. But I'm afraid I'm >repeating myself. Since my view does awake so much negative emotion I >have decided that this is my final message in this forum. > >Mats Winther ------------------------------- Was Tal a bad grandmaster because he used tactical trickery? I think not. Like Tal said he did not care if someone could refute hes play after the game. Just aslong as he other player could not do it at the board. You may not like the sytle of this kind of play. But you have to like the results it gets.
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.