Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:59:01 08/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2001 at 08:54:27, Adam Oellermann wrote: >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. No It also can help you to find a good positional move. There are cases when humans do not consider a good positional move and looking at the move for only 1/2 second can be enough for them to understand that it is probably a good positional move that they need to analyze. Uri
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.