Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:31:46 04/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2002 at 10:46:26, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On April 18, 2002 at 21:29:34, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>Playing Nxh6 in the posted position (Nolot 1) isn't going to get you anywhere >>without playing the followup combination (Nf5, Qg4, etc.). So in this case, >>Junior is not finding the solution at all, and it's unlucky, IMO, that this is >>the case. The line given by Junior was very unconvincing, and at best probably >>leads to a draw. There are other moves in the position that can get merely a >>draw, but playing Nxh6 for the right reason is the only sure way to _win_ this >>position. > >I tried Juniors last line against my program and it agreed with the PV, until it >got a big fail low a few moves into it. If I let Junior play the white side and >put my program with black, Junior would play Nxh6, not see the 'followup >combination that is the only sure win', but still completely crush my program >anyway. > >To say that Junior is 'lucky' to find this move is a serious misrepresentation >of the truth. > >Junior is extremely good in assessing positions like this, much better than any >other program I know of. It's no coincidence it finds the right move, even if >appearently for the wrong reasons. > >What you fail to understand it that it does not matter at all whether a program >plays a move for the right reasons or not. The only thing that counts in the end >is the moves that it dashes out on the board, and whether it wins games or not. >\ This is wrong thinking. If it will play the right move for the wrong reason, then in similar positions it will play the _wrong_ move for the wrong reason, and lose. All you have to do is add a simple endgame rule that says _always_ centralize the king to see why this happens. Then give your opponent a passed pawn on the edge of the board and see how much that king in the center helps. The idea is that centralizing is not the right idea. The right idea is to get the king to wherevere it is needed, whether that is the edge, the corner, or the center. Just moving it to the center will be right in plenty of positions. But it will be wrong in enough to make it obvious, too... >Junior picks this move because it considers it to give white the best practical >winning chances compared to the other moves. That analysis is correct. Here. By chance. A random number could also lead to this move... > >Even if it does not play the variation that is a forced win, it'll still play >a variation that gives it excellent winning chances, and beat the crap out of >it's opponents. > >You have to seperate yourself from the idea that a chessprogram must play the >objectively best move each and every time. This would be true if the opponent >would play perfectly, but they don't. You might want to play the moves that give >you a chance to beat your opponent. You can gamble, take risks, and make sure >that you gamble better than your opponent. > If you take this approach, then beating the top GM players will be totally impossible. You can't rely on luck. >Chris Wittington realized this first, and Christophe Theron was next. Junior 7 >also follows this strategy. If you take a closer look, you'll see that all >top SSDF programs have elements of this playing style. <sigh> Another "new paradigm" thread? I don't think so. Comparing CSTal with any other program is pointless. They are not the same. > >It's a design decision to make Junior play moves like Nxh6 without fully >understanding or calculating where it's going to end up. Sometimes it will >backfire. If you look at Juniors performances in tournaments, you'll realize >it works much more often than it backfires. > >Junior gambles because it knows the odds are in it's favor. If you win >a bet where you had, say, >95% winning chance, were you really 'lucky'? > >-- >GCP if it was _really_ 95%, no. But is it _really_ right that often? I doubt it.
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.