Author: Adam Oellermann
Date: 05:54:27 08/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2001 at 07:30:57, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 09, 2001 at 07:13:21, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: > >>On August 09, 2001 at 06:19:01, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I do not have the impression that weak players use the chess computer method. >>>They have enough time at tournament time control to do 1 ply search and 1 ply >>>search after the move that they plan to play but they do not do it and a common >>>mistake of amatuers is not to play a move simply because they did not analyze it >>>or to lose material or to do a positional mistake because they did not consider >>>the opponent reply even for one second. >>> >> >> >>You should really read the article, if you didn't already. The way Graham tells >>it is a one line synopsis of an article, which is a synopsis of a research >>project. That's logical. >> >>The comparison lies not so much in raw calculating, but in the necessity of >>*assessing* each chess position from ground zero. >> >>The extensive use of their memory sets strong chess players up to constantly >>recall both the current situation as well as the development of the position, >>leading to pattern recognition, and better results. With this they can -based on >>the position characteristics- develop a plan and the candidate moves much more >>easily. >> >>As the weak chess player lacks this level of pattern recoginition, he has to >>assess the position a bit like a basic chess program does: start crunching all >>move sequences. >>For a computer program this still can result in very strong play - because of >>node speed - but as the human brain hasn't got the ability to not only tune up >>to that speed, but store and retrieve the analysis tree in a useful manner, the >>*weak* player will oversee even the most simple countermoves of the opponent. >> >>Basically the research seems to indicate that *memory* is very important, and >>the lack of it leads to more basic and flawed methods of calculation, *not* that >>the strong player thinks like a human and the weak like a computer. >> >>Nothing new under the sun, as these results confirm earlier research. >>And we all *know* that, as we play the same. >>Well know fact is that drilling with (simple) tactical combinations makes you >>aware of the possibilities of recognizing them in real play. >> >>I am *not* a strong chess player, but with my training and after-game analysis >>I'm always looking almost *automatically* for these positional characteristics. >> >>Just a few days ago I have been looking at numerous games with the sicilian in >>the ECO B50's range, as I have good results with those opening as black, but >>very often am stuck with a weak pawn on d6. >>I kick my opening books aside and specifically tried to identify the >>*characteristics* of games in which black won the game, although the d6 pawn (as >>a plus pawn for white) was nicked off the board. >> >>Not looking for a 'move sequence' how to solve it, but characteristics of piece >>placement and strong and weak points. A basic chess program won't do that, as >>well as a weak chess player. > >I agree that recognizing patterns is importnat but calculating is also important >and I believe that training in 1 ply searches can help most of the players >including the GM's to play better. > >1 ply searches are not going to help in most of the cases to get a new idea but >one case when it helps to get a new idea can help to get get a better result. > >Uri If we're going to transplant computer-chess terms into human chess playing, we should probably say at least "1 ply search with quiescence". What does 1 ply help? It just saves you accidentally leaving a piece en prise. How often does that happen in a serious game, especially at GM level? Personally, I think that the notion of "ply" is not applicable to human search; the pruning is too odd and unpredictable. Who knows how many ply a GM is calculating/remembering? From his point of view he simply "understands" the position. This is true of us weaker mortals as well; what differs is not "ply" but "understanding". Improving the understanding can make a weak human play more like a GM. Improving the ply can make a weak human lost and confused. - Adam
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.