Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:36:47 01/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2002 at 07:33:59, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 28, 2002 at 07:29:03, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 28, 2002 at 07:11:05, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 2002 at 06:58:25, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On January 28, 2002 at 06:42:25, Albert Silver wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 28, 2002 at 06:33:26, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 28, 2002 at 06:12:53, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Will TACTIC's eventually REFUTE! Positional play? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In the end yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is my (new) opinion that the nature of chess is just search. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Elo progress of (professional) chess programs... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1990 - elo 2000 (average depth 6-8) (TC 40/2h) >>>>>>>1995 - elo 2300 (average depth 8-10) >>>>>>>2000 - elo 2500 (average depth 11-13) >>>>>>>2002 - elo 2600 (average depth 12-14) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This begs the question, because the programs are newer and play positionally >>>>>>different. Will a 1990/1995 program perform 2600+ on today's hardware ? >>>>>>Doubtful. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>No way to stop it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No suprise Kasparov lost against Deep Blue. >>>>>> >>>>>>It was a surprise because he is clearly better. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The sad future: it will be in the headlines when a grandmaster occasionally will >>>>>>>win from a computer. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>If this will happen due to positionally outplaying will you also consider it sad >>>>>>? >>>>>> >>>>>>Amir >>>>> >>>>>I don't think he meant it would be sad they won, but that this would be >>>>>considered news. In any case, I'm afraid I agree with him on the nature of >>>>>chess. I think that positional play is just extremely deep and refined tactical >>>>>play. Since we approach them differently, we regard them as different, but that >>>>>is still how I regard them. Notice how already some elements of knowledge that >>>>>were necessary in older programs are removed as the search makes up for it. >>>> >>>>I do not believe in it. >>>> >>>>If it is the case palm tiger should have knowledge that the default tiger does >>>>not have but it is not the case because I remember from christophe's posts that >>>>palm tiger is the same engine that he is using for tournaments except more hash >>>>tables book and better hardware. >>>> >>>>Palm tiger is better than the old programs on similiar hardware and it means >>>>that exactly the same knowledge that is good for today programs can be also good >>>>for old programs. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I was speaking about the reverse: knowledge that was necessary or useful in >>>older programs with much more limited hardware but that is not necessary or >>>useful today. >>> > >>I understood and my point is that knowledge that was used in palm tiger is also >>necessary for tiger on good hardware and palm tiger is the best for it's >>hardware. >> >>Uri > >There used to be knowledge that was deliberately inserted to avoid things such >as giving a piece to play a fork and capture the rook on a1/a8. This was useful >because they always played this (the Mephisto MMIV did IIRC) and lost the second >piece (the knight) a bit after. Today this horizon effect is compensated by the >depth of the search. This is just an example, and I'm sure the programmers could >say more about this. > > Albert The question is if this knowledge was really necessary. It is possible that palm tiger can achieve the same target by other means. 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.