Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 00:05:46 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2002 at 19:09:14, martin fierz wrote: >On February 21, 2002 at 18:23:30, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>On February 21, 2002 at 17:18:52, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>>i would say, computers today resemble a manic-depressive supergrandmaster in >>>their results - not in their play. there are many positions which they do not >>>understand. they can achieve the same performance as a grandmaster quite often, >>>and yet they are totally clueless in whole classes of positions, >> >>Very few indeed nowadays and especially found in endgames, but there are >>tablebases for that... > >no. not very few. everything closed. everything involving trapped pieces too. >dann corbit recently posted a position asking "which program can see that this >position is dead lost?". i think none could. there was not much response to that >post by all the guys with the fast machines and the good programs :-) >i could see it easily - with my lousy 2200 rating. the concept of "this piece >will never move again" is not in the programs AFAIK. i have written one of the >best checkers programs around, and it is grandmaster-like in performance without >doubt. yet i know that it has serious weaknesses when trapped pieces are >involved. i don't know how to explain the concept to the program :-(. i can (and >have) put in lots of special cases - but a general "understanding" which does >not rely on thousands of "if then else" rules would be much better. chess, of >course, is much more complicated than checkers. >tablebases only work with very few pieces, and it is unlikely that we will see >larger tablebases than 6 pieces in our lifetime (i claim - is it true?). I can indicate a page of computer chess tests included that with the above "never concept" that are solved nowadays by the stongest programs : http://www.multimania.com/albillo/cmain.htm > >> >>which even >>>human beginners can understand. >>>people like me say that computers are not grandmasters, because they have >>>completely different capabilities than a grandmaster - they reach the same ends >>>by *totally* different means. i'm not saying they play worse performancewise. >>>but they are something different. you cannot compare apples and oranges :-) >>> >> >>If that is your point the match between Human and comps are nonsense for you ? > >not at all: they are very interesting. humans and computers use totally >different approaches to get to the same result, play chess well. it's >interesting to see how they try to lure each other on their "home ground". you >can see that LvW is playing the french defense against rebel, something which i >think (?) he doesn't play often; in the hope of keeping the position closed. i >believe that the game of chess between humans and computers is not decided by >one side playing better chess than the other, but rather by which side succeeds >to get his type of play. closed position, rebel loses. tactics, LvW loses. so >it's a kind of "meta-game", where you aim at a certain type of position. i like >to watch the meta-game. LvW obviously knows what he is trying to do (unlike the >chess tiger in argentine games, where IMO the opponents were not well prepared), >but he is not succeeding as black. up to now, i would have thought that a >well-prepared grandmaster (prepared at meta-game strategy, not chess-wise) would >still beat a computer. but it looks like i might be wrong :-) > >aloha > martin So you are a believer of anti-computer strategies, but keep in mind that also Rebel was using an anti-human strategy... w.b.r. Otello
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.