Author: Amir Ban
Date: 04:42:39 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. A white knight on a8/h8 is weak and often in trouble, and there's nothing wrong with factoring that in the evaluation function. The fact that search will often find this on its own is immaterial. Look at CCT4 ZarkovX vs. DJ for a nice demonstration. Amir
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.