Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 14:53:16 05/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 1998 at 17:18:37, Don Dailey wrote: >Thorsten, > >I see you constantly post about knowledge and search speed as if >it is completely separate, there is some reason to believe you >do indeed partition this stuff into black and white. Generally >you seem to view speed contempously and knowledge with warmth. 1 from 4 times. Maybe. I can live with 1/4. >But this is only my general impression, forgive me if I am wrong >here. :-)) I have forgiven you. :-)) >I like to view a chess program as a "black box" that spits out >moves. We don't care what happens inside the box, and whatever >happens there is hidden from view. A good question for all of >us is could we really tell the difference if we could not see >node counts, iteration numbers and claims of speed. What if all >we saw as output was a move? Could you identify the fast >programs? > >- Don Maybe not. I would not have identified Tiger 11.2 !! I would have identified Nimzo by watching the game: Paderborn 1998, CTiger-Nimzo98 There Nimzo made many "null-moves" that would have made it easy to identify it. Of course I can make mistakes by doing the turing-test. But studying the main-lines, evals and the MOMENT (=time) correlation WHEN which program SAW the point, gives me exactly THE NEEDED information to identify about chess-strength. If I would not see this information, and only have black box, working with programmers would not very good possible. My friend Bernd has 2430 ELO. He is not able to tell you by looking at the main-lines/evals which chess program is stronger. But he can tell you which program played stronger. BUT : he still is unable to say from ONE game which program is stronger. I can do so from watching ONE game. HE needs many games, and THAN he is able to follow it. I have tried this with him in an experiment 1993 in munuch, championship. At the beginning of the tournament I told him hiarcs would win. I showed him the program Mark and I tested before munich. He was unable to FEEL it. I said to him, wait until we are in munich, i will teach you to understand - to watch the right way on the main-lines. After a few games of hiarcs he was able. We replayed all munich games in the train on the journey back from munich to Dortmund and I saw by his comments that he WAS able to understand what I felt before. So even a strong chess player is no guaranty to diagnosis about chess-strength. Strong chess players often do not know WHAT is complicate for programs and what not. They project from their own problems in chess and think the machines are the same. But Bernd WAS able to FEEL what I felt after some days in munich. In the end he was as enthusiastic about hiarcs as I was, but he had of course the much deeper understanding of chess. He told/advised me about HIS insights, and i told him what to watch out when you want to value chess programs. A black box would handicap me. But not him. I NEED the information from the programs. Sorry. I am not a good chess player but I have seen strong chess players tels. Search depth and correlation of fail-lows and other things. If you make me a black-box (like in the dedicated machine times) I need more time than with information.
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.