Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 15:42:41 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. Hi Mats: Maybe Fritz -or any other program- would cut off the continuation not because the matters is "beyond his understanding" -what does it means, anyway?. This sound to me like a petitio principle falacy- but because his calculation power are not enough. At the end Petrosian won that game not because the misterious move he did sacrificing a rook, but because of that move, later in the game, he he got very materialistic advantages. AT THE END ANY CHESS GAME ENDS by a matter of material advantage: you abandon a game not because your "position" is bad, but instead the position is bad because you divine that from that point on you will lose enough material or will be just mated. Then again, the instinct of Petrosian -founded in all the human history of chess- is a kind of calculation made out by different means, not move by move, yes, but calculation. I don't know any game of chess that ends without an actual or potential material difference. Normally we don't see that now because on average human players are enough good these days to see when the position is doomed lolong before the actual execution. Then, mnaterialistic point of view and strategical or positional one not only are correlated, but are the same thing with differents approaches. There is even a sychic side in all this: cvalculation that has been made before are stocked and not repeated, just like computer has a has table with results previously made. I would bet that Petrosian did hiis sacriffice on the ground of some kind of stocked calculation. Fernando 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
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.