Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 18:23:22 05/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 1998 at 20:31:29, Don Dailey wrote: >On May 13, 1998 at 18:14:43, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On May 13, 1998 at 13:52:30, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>>On May 13, 1998 at 13:06:56, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On May 13, 1998 at 07:14:16, Ralph Jörg Hellmig wrote: >>>> >>>>>So if there is a special time control, one program may play positionally >>>>>better, but the other one has better tactics, for example, the >>>>>positional better program will be stronger if the time control >>>>>increases, as it does also see the deciding tactics ... >>>> >>>>Another chess legend. >>>> >>>>Who has any proof of this statement? >>> >>>I have empirical evidence of it. That is if you mean longer time >>>(or faster hardware) favors the program with more knowledge. >>> >>> >>>>More knowledge better at longer time controls? Take a look at the top of >>>>the SSDF list, sit down a minute, and think again about this legend. >>>> >>>>I think that if you have more time to compute, you need LESS knowledge. >>>>We still have to find which kind of knowledge is needed in this case, >>>>and which other can be thrown out happily. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>>Hi Guys, >>> >>> >>>I used to believe strongly that with faster and faster hardware, >>>knowledge becomes less important. The reason I believed this >>>was that eventually all programs would converge on a game theoretic >>>solution, which is essentially proof of this concept. >>> >>>HOWEVER, at the depths we are currently doing (and for the forseeable >>>future) it seems that the opposite is true. I did a big experiment >>>where many programs with varying amounts of knowledge played each >>>other. I generated hundredes of thousands of games on several computers >>>over several weeks of time. What happend was that the programs with >>>the most knowledge, improved very rapidly with depth compared to the >>>programs with little knowledge. >>> >>>I suspect with a great amount of depth, the knowledgable programs >>>would not be able to improve very much since they would be close >>>to "perfect while the dumb ones would be playing catch-up. But it >>>looks like we are a long way away from these ranges at current >>>time controls on modern hardware. >>> >>>About your reference to Fritz. Is Fritz really so bad at positional >>>chess? Some people confuse conservative play with bad chess. Could >>>this be the case here? It's hard for me to believe Fritz could be >>>that horrible and still be on top just due to a little extra speed. >>>I'll bet you will find that it's evaluation is reasonable, well >>>balanced and not as bad as it's reputation. It's my understanding >>>also that Franz has added knowledge gradually over time to keep up. >>> >> >> >>Hi: >>You are right. Fritz is not that bad in positional play. That has became >>a kind of legend and nobody -as happens with legends- ask, now, how much >>true that that statement is. I Have played many games against Fritz 5 >>and it is no totaly deprived of sound positional judgment and the very >>last version that you can get in chessbase USA is a lot stronger in that >>sense. Precisely I was going to post a new post enterily dedicated to >>that. I have not made many test, but in equalo or similar positions the >>new Fritz 5 is not only decent, but clearly good in evaluating >>positional factors. >>Nevertheless, always a question rest qwithout answer: what is, in this >>fiel, Knopwelñedege? Is more or less the same we consider as theory in >>the field of human chess playing? I think it should be not. A theroy is >>a guide for certain kind of mind looking solutions and so it's validity >>is partially related with that. I mean, a computer thinks in a different >>way or it should, so a different kind of theroy could be more adbisable. >>But of course I am not ptogrammer, I cannot say more than this. As wee >>say in my country, "A different thing is wityh the guitar in your >>hands..." >> >>>The thing I notice about Fritz is that even on 1 ply, most of its >>>moves are reasonable, at least positionally. >>> >>> >>>- Don > >Hi Fernando, > >When I renamed the subject heading I should have called it another >legend (instead of time contol legend!) Then the Fritz part would >have been approapriate also to the subject! That's probably why >I'm not a writer! > >But to address your rhetorical question, "what is knowledge in this >field", the term is thrown about loosely. In my post I was refering >to the evaluation function only (people try to measure it by number >of terms which I believe is ludicrous.) > >But it can be viewed in a more global sense. There is lot's of "smarts" >in chess programs that go beyond a static evaluation function. >The first thing that pop's into mind is knowing when to stop the >search, or continue with an extension. Another is being more >intelligent >about the time control algorithms and so on. > >I have noticed that you take a more abstract view than most (and more >than I do for sure!) You ask questions or present facts in ways to >stimulate the imagination, while I tend to ask dry pointed questions >and give out detailed specific answers! I think this is great. >Maybe some will rub off on me. > >- Don Well, that's the kind of reasonning you are coerced to do when you are not an expert. Precisely some days ago, in one of my journalistic articles with which I earn a living, talking of the great mexican writer recently dead, Octavio Paz, I said that the essay as a vehicle of thought -used plenty by paz- is tending to dissappear as much as the ABC of almost anything is now a commodity and then the proper field of essay tends to shrink. With exceptions, you write an essay about a field when there are not in it wenough specific knowledege to make irrelevant a general speculñation about it. The same here: i am "abstracta" because I lack the knowledge to write and think as you do in thios field. So, my way of thinking is less a virtue or even a personal quality, but in fact a show of ignorance. Sorry for this non-chessic disgression. Any case, abstract ignorance and sound specific knowledge and reasonning complement in the complex business of living: With you I learn something and from me maybe you get some fun, here and there. :-) Fernando
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.