Author: Don Dailey
Date: 13:33:25 07/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 1998 at 15:32:20, blass uri wrote: > >On July 19, 1998 at 14:35:22, Don Dailey wrote: > >>On July 19, 1998 at 13:42:02, john c cook wrote: >> >>>i have played fritz5 vs rebel and junior and hiarcs6 and it did come out >>>on top but can it be number #1 with people. >>> look like rebel9 may be #1 with people fritz5 record is not as good as >>>rebel9 vs humen am i right or not it was hard for me to belive fritz5 >>> as #1 i like rebel9 better >> >>That's an interesting question. I used to argue that slow positional >>programs should be better against humans and fast tactical ones should >>be better against other computers (relative to their total chess >>playing strengths.) But it has not necessarily turned out to be >>that way. > >I do not think fast tactical programs should be better against other computers >If the other computers are programmed to play in anti computer style against >fritz5 like humans it can be the opposite. I agree with this in principle. It might be difficult make a computer play anti-computer though, I'm not sure where I would start. >>This might be another example of how a reasonable idea may not be >>the correct one, I don't know. The idea that positional programs >>should be better against people is based on the idea that positional >>play is the computers greatest weakness and that this is how humans >>beat them. But no one ever seems to consider that tactics is the >>humans greatest weakness against computers and this is how computers >>beat them! I don't know why no one ever thinks of this but it is >>possibly because of our ego-centric nature. We seem to think that >>computers should conform to the human style of playing chess, probably >>because we are humans! >> >>A chess master once told me not to worry about my opponents >>too much and play the kind of chess I play best. He said a common >>mistake for weaker players when facing stronger ones was to change >>their games out of respect for the masters. Most common was that >>people would avoid tactics even when it was their strength. >> >>Then later a tennis pro told me the same thing. He said I should >>do what I do best, and my tennis game benefitting a lot from that >>advice. I was free to concentrate on my own strengths. >> >>If this advice was extended to computer chess programs, the advice >>would be write programs that maximize the things that chess programs >>do best. The point many people miss is that fast programs can >>still know quite a bit about chess, the same as I can always improve >>on my tennis weaknesses. But it would not make sense to give up >>your greatest strengths to do this. > >I think it is not a good idea to maximize the things that chess programs do best >because humans will choose to go to positions that the things programs can do >best are not important. It's not as simple as just choosing which kind of game you want to play. It's a battle. Both sides get to make choices and both sides have some power to control the kind of game that develops. The better you play your own kind of game, the more it limits the choices the opponent has, because he will be compelled to avoid your strengths, even if the positions is objectively better. Did you noticed the way Kasparov played against Deep Blue? This illustrates my point very well. Kasparov did exactly what you said, but he didn't get those anti-computer positions for free. He payed a price for this. You will always pay a price if you are compelled to avoid objectively better positions in order to get a game your oppponent does not like. I'm not saying it wasn't worth the price, I'm only saying that playing your strength forces some concessions on the other guy. The same happens in tennis. If someone has an awesome forehand, you hit most of the balls to his backhand. This is probably a good strategy, but it's not for free. Just having to avoid his strengths is a significant concession to make and puts some limits on YOUR game. Given a choice between hitting a weak shot to his backhand, or a strong shot to his forehand, what will you do? One last example. As a beginner, I hated to trade queens, most beginners have this bias. As I improved I noticed that my opponents, also beginners, had the same bias. So I would offer a queen trade that forced some big concession in their position if they avoided it. For instance some of them would accept a weak pawn just to avoid the trade. So who really won? They got their way and got to play their kind of game (a game with queens) but I made them pay a price for this. Interestingly, the players that were better than me would call my bluff in these situations and I quickly learned you cannot always get your way, it's really a barter system with chess, I'll give you this, but you must give me that in return! - Don >Uri >> >>I don't know what the answer to your question is. Unfortunately >>this is a hard question to answer as the data is sparse. I do >>remember a program a few years ago that had a strong reputation >>as being especially good against people relative to other chess >>programs. Against other programs it was good, but not nearly >>as impressive. One characteristic of this program was that it >>was extremely fast. This was the Novag constellation series >>of programs. It was the first program to get an "official" >>USCF rating of over 2000 against people. >> >>I know that Fritz is pretty popular with the stronger players >>too. I don't know if it's because of the tactics or because >>of the overall chess strength. Don't make any assumptions >>yet about which kind of program is better against people. I >>really don't think there is a known basis for determining this >>although I am quite sure you will get strong opinions on both >>sides of the coin. >> >>- Don
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.