Author: Mark Young
Date: 07:22:26 05/22/98
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 ?
>
Its not that they understand chess better. The point is that they
understand chess as well. Then you add the faster tactics because of the
leaner code. This gives you the stronger chess computer. You said these
three programs are not "much stronger". You may be right. The point is
that they are stronger with less knowledege.
>>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.
>
I don't know what other people have said in the past. I just think the
skill part is making a top program with less knowledege. The programmers
need to know what kind of Knowledege
they need to give the program. Then letting the program get much of what
it needs positionally from its deeper search. If this is done
incorrectly the program will play awful chess. Yet these three
programmers have the best programs out. To me, it would seems much
easyer to just add Knowledege. Not take it away.
>>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 ?
>
Positional understanding and tactical understanding are one in the same.
So the Fast search programs can get some of there positional
understanding from the search tree. Now Junior, Fritz 5, and Nimzo 98
can not see deeply enough to understand all aspects of chess. So the
skill part is knowing what Knowledege they need to code in, and what
knowledege they can get from the deeper search.
>
>
>>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 ?
>
If I am correct. The proof is in the fact the Junior, Fritz5, and Nimzo
98 are the strongest programs out. Yes even Fritz 5 shows positional
understanding. I know your feeling on Fritz 5 and I respect your
feeling. But lets not get carried away be saying Fritz 5 shows no
positional understanding.
>
>> 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.
Even you said that they were stronger. Not "much stronger", but still
stronger.
Because they see tactics faster and deeper then the slower search
programs.
>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.
I don't know about you, but I have seen all chess programs do this.
>For how long do you believe will Fritz5 be no.1 ?
>
I just don't know. If the SSDF results are more true then not, it could
be some time before it gets knocked off the top spot. Look how little
gain each new version of the other programs are getting. I think that
may be why some of the other programmers are in a panic. What I find
good about this whole thing is that If Fritz 5 is as strong as SSDF
says. I know the other programmers will work hard to beat it. This in
the long run will give us all better chess programs to play. No matter
what program style ( fast search or slow search ) they choose to take.
Mark Young
>
>>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.