Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 07:31:06 04/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2002 at 05:03:29, Sune Fischer wrote: >I am one of those ignorant people that have some doubts about the true strength >of the programs ;) >Let me explain why... >We all agree that in tactics nothing beats the computers, but how good are they >at the positional level? Not to be boring, but I would like to stress that tactics is way more important in chess than positional knowledge for winning purposes I mean... >I am sure the programs are way behind GMs in the static analysis of a position, >because a programmer can only implement a bunch of static rules, That bunch of rules is often fruit of YEARS of tuning with many, many parameters , but nevertheless I consider much more important the overall including the innovative search algorithms. >and not the >extensive knowledge and experience of a GM, often the programmer is not a very >strong player himself, which doesn't exactly help either. That's your opinion, please read here: Martin: 2. Must a chess programmer also be a good chess player in order to write a top program? How important is chess knowledge? Christophe Theron: I believe that being a strong chess player is a serious HANDICAP if you want to write a strong chess program. If you have too much prejudices about chess, then you are not really in the right state of mind. To write a strong chess program you must have a very open mind and be prepared to react in a flexible way. You must be prepared to try as many ideas as possible. You will find that most ideas that sound obvious for a human chess player do not work. You must be ready to give them up and to think differently. As time goes by, you develop a different understanding of the basic nature of chess. Of course, chess knowledge is valuable, but the problem is that a computer program does not need the same knowledge than a human player. You need to filter what chess knowledge is going to be useful, and what knowledge cannot be used (yet). As a programmer, after looking at many games played by my program, I have been able to develop some sort of strategic sense of the game. It is nowhere near what a GM can do, but this knowledge, implemented in my program and enhanced by the speed of a computer, gives the strength of the Tiger engines. There are a number of concepts that human players use that I have found to be useless for my chess program. The most interesting one is the concept of tempo. It is a key concept in human chess, but it appears nowhere in the source code of Chess Tiger. I guess that the program is able to SYNTHESIZE this concept from the other concepts it knows, which is a very fascinating thought. >This is a weakness in the programs, it is there but seems to be completely >unexploited by most of the strong players. >Exactly how strong does one needs to be to dissect a program completely is not >clear, but I have heard of players with sub 2000 elo that has a great score >against the programs. That is a legend... I think it can be done, GMs don't bother however. In all >the matches GM vs computer we have seen lately, it's been 4-8 games, far too few >for a complete dissection. > >To my knowledge programs today are mainly used for training, testing new >openings and analysing games, that sort of thing. >GMs are so used to playing humans, that they can't change their style when >facing computers. Why should have to force themselves to play in a different way at any cost...don't understand you. >Much time and energy is wasted by "thinking the wrong way". ???? >Remember that 99.9% of all the games they play are against humans, this is how >they make their living, so bad habbits die hard I guess ;) > C'mon >I can be convinced that programs are *truly* above 2500, but I would have to see >the programs enter hard and serious tournaments, where players would bother to >find the weaknesses of their opponents. I guess that many masters already own in their personal computer a strong chess program where to practice...so that's excuses >A 24 game match against a 2400 player, lots of money at stake, with one days >rest between games and loads of strong GM analysis of the games during the >match, I think the IM would win. > >For all practical purposes; playing random opponents on the internet and very >short matches, I must agree that good programs today perform quite consistently >above 2500. > >-S. I 's say 2600 and more. 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.