Author: Albert Silver
Date: 04:46:03 01/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2002 at 07:42:39, Amir Ban wrote:
>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
Yes, I saw that game as it took place, and couldn't even begin to understand
what the heck Zarkov's knight was doing on a7... Just ridiculous.
Albert
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.