Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 19:15:48 05/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 1998 at 21:54:07, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On May 21, 1998 at 19:40:07, Mark Young wrote: >>Yes Junior, Fritz 5, and Nimzo 98 are fast searchers. > >Right. > > >> And one could >>argue from there results that these three programs are the top programs >>out right now. > >Maybe right. > > >> I think what Junior, Fritz 5, and Nimzo 98 have shown >>that its not amount of knowledege that important. Its understanding what >>positional knowledege that the program does not need. > >Why ? I don't see that these 3 programs are much stronger than >Hiarcs or Mchess. I do not believe that these 3 programs understand >chess better than Hiarcs or Mchess. Do you ? It does not seem to me that mark said fast searchers understand chess better than hiarcs or Mchess. Neither that they are stronger. The one point to be discussed is if fast saerching with some -of course not deprived at all of some criteria as the very same concept of programming implies- knowledege can or cannot get some good positional assestment. My impressions is: yes. That means always they see right? No, neither knowledgable programs do. Nor GM do. You ever can get an example of bad handling of positional considerations. The practical point here is to recognize that average top fast searchers programs are enough decent in his positional evaluuations to get results and so can be concluded that positional evaluation can, in principle, be gotten with other tools than what we call knowledge in the classic sense of a lot of theroy and general principles encased in the source code. fernando >>In my mind it >>takes more skill to write a program in this way. > >I think here you are wrong. I know that I will now hurt some people, but >I don't believe writing a fast-searcher program is very difficult >attempt. >I think it was Chrilly himself who said something like this. >Oh no - it was - now I remember it accurate, it was Dieter Steinwender. > >>This leaner code gives >>the program its faster search rate. Giving the program greater search >>depth. With the greater search depth I think the programs sees over the >>board what positional has to be done. > >How can it see what positional stuff has to be done when its knowledge >about positional is very rudimental ? >Also - does it even HAVE knoweldge in deep lines ? >Or does it only have piece-square tables from the root ? > > > >>This may give Junior, Fritz 5, and >>Nimzo 98 a better more flexable positional understanding. > >Big words. How can you prove them ? >I have not seen Fritz showing positional understanding. >Maybe Junior, sometimes Nimzo. But Fritz5 ? > > >> Then some >>static positional programmed knowledege that may help in some positions >>and kill you in others. > >STATIC POSITIONAL programs have a search-tree too. In opposite to the >others, they use their full knowledge within the tree. >I don't understand why you believe that knowledge chess programs are >weaker. >As I said, in positions where there is nothing to find, nimzo98 or Fritz >do stupid moves, mainly moving repetition moves. Moving back good >developed pieces. Doing kind of "null moves". They have no plan. No >idea. They only see something, when the opponent makes it possible. This >is pretty passive. >I don't think that having no plan is worth much. >For how long do you believe will Fritz5 be no.1 ? > > >>This is only a guess on my part. I will let the chess programmers set me >>straight. > >I will do the same. And I do also only guess. >> >> Mark Young
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.