Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:53:20 05/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2002 at 13:19:53, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On May 07, 2002 at 12:34:57, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 07, 2002 at 11:29:40, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >> >>>On May 07, 2002 at 02:29:26, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 06, 2002 at 22:31:28, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 06, 2002 at 19:45:22, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 06, 2002 at 18:06:47, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 06, 2002 at 15:34:01, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 05, 2002 at 19:58:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Knowledge" in the sense of positional evaluation (that's what most people think >>>>>>>>>about when they talk about knowledge) makes for 10% of the strength of a chess >>>>>>>>>program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Chess is 90% about tactics (which is a concept close to "search"). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Before strongly disagreeing (as I guess I will), what does this mean ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If I freeze my search engine and work only to improve the evaluation, how much >>>>>>>>do you expect the total strength to improve ? Is it limited ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I expect the strength of your engine to improve, but not much in regard to the >>>>>>>energy invested. Because you are going to focus your efforts on an area that >>>>>>>does not have the biggest potential in strength. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On the other hand people will love it more and more because it will have a much >>>>>>>better playing style. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>People can forgive gross tactical blunders, but not slight positional mistakes. >>>>>>>Go figure... >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that people are different. >>>>>> >>>>>>There are people who will prefer the engine that is better in tactics and there >>>>>>are a lot of people who are going to prefer the engine that wins without caring >>>>>>for the reasons. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That's different when your program plays against a gransmaster in a public place >>>>>(or on the Internet). >>>> >>>> >>>>comp-comp games are also interesting for many people. >>>> >>>>I think that programmers usually care more about comp-comp games and not about >>>>comp-human games. >>>> >>>>I know that some simple ideas about time management that can be productive >>>>against humans are not used by most of the programs. >>>> >>>>One of them is simply to play faster when the opponent is in time trouble. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Here I'm talking about current top engines of today, naturally. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Building a chess engine with a broken evaluation to demonstrate that a better >>>>>>>evaluation could improve it tremendously is not in the spirit of my idea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I understand that you are saying that it will change the style but overall >>>>>>>>strength will not be much changed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I do not know exactly how far we will be able to go with the 10% I attribute to >>>>>>>positional evaluation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm not saying it counts for nothing and that overall strength will not benefit >>>>>>>from research in this area. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I believe that the positional evaluation is the part of a chess program >>>>>>>responsible for only 10% of the strength, and that the rest is done by the >>>>>>>search. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not understand like Amir what is the exact meaning of 10%. >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe that most of the amatuers can earn more rating from improvement in the >>>>>>search rules and not from improvement in the evaluation but I also think that >>>>>>the ratio is usually not 9:1 and I guess something like 2.5:1(I know that you >>>>>>did not say that the ratio is 9:1 but it is a possible way to understand the >>>>>>claim that search is responsible for 90% of the strength when evaluation is >>>>>>responsible for 10%) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>:) >>>>> >>>>>You do not understand the meaning of my 10%, but you suggest that it is another >>>>>number? >>>>> >>>>>So you must understand what I am talking about, somehow... >>>> >>>>I suggested a possible meaning for the 10% and said that by this meaning it is >>>>another number. >>>> >>>>I did not say that it is your meaning and I see that it is not your meaning. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I guess that it is possible to improve most of the amatuers that are 400-600 elo >>>>>>weaker than Junior by average number of 100 elo by doing a lot of work only on >>>>>>the evaluation when you can improve them only by average number of 250 elo by >>>>>>doing the same amount of work on the search rules without changing the >>>>>>evaluation. >>>>>> >>>>>>The total improvement from working on both things may be bigger than the sum of >>>>>>100 and 250 because after improving the evaluation the best search rules may be >>>>>>different. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't think the proportion is measured in elo points. >>>>> >>>>>My unit for the 90%/10% estimation is subjective. It's something like the amount >>>>>of reward for a given programming effort. >>>>> >>>>>A successful effort in search get a reward 9 times bigger than a succesful >>>>>effort in positional evaluation. >>>>> >>>>>Not to say that work on positional evaluation can be ignored. >>>>> >>>>>I notice that some chess players tend also to agree that chess is essentially a >>>>>matter of search (tactics). >>>> >>>>I agree and I also think that search is the most important thing to work about. >>>> >>>>I think also that evaluation and search are connected and another thing to work >>>>about is learning from the search to change the evaluation. >>>> >>>>Humans do not know that fortress positions is a draw by static knowledge but >>>>learn from their search to change their evaluation. >>> >>>Humans understand a fortress position by logic, certainly not by search. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Miguel >> >>I talk about positions when humans has no previous knowledge that the position >>is a fortress. > >In those positions logic could be supplemented by a little of retrograde >analysis if the fortress is complex, but "search" play almost no part in the >"pseudo-static" evaluation of such positions by a human. Search might be needed >to know how to reach the fortress, but the understanding of the fortress >comes from pure logic and "static" considerations. >A minimum of search might be required if a complex fortress could lead to a more >simple fortress. Generally that would like a 1-2 plies search. >The one on the Smirin match was a fortress that a human can understand with >almost pure logic, i.e. describing it with words rather than variations. > >Regards, >Miguel I think that the question is what is the definition of search Here is the position from the game: [D]8/1p6/4k3/5p2/pP2bP1p/2N1P1pP/1P6/6K1 b - - 0 50 Here are the relevant lines that humans need to search to understand that the black king cannot goto a5-d5 Kd5 Nxd5 Kc5 bxc5 Kb5 Nxb5 Ka5 bxa5 You can claim that it is no search because search is only of legal moves. In this case I give you another position: [D]8/1pPk1K2/pP6/P7/8/8/5B2/8 w - - 0 1 How can humans know that it is a draw without previous knowledge? I think that they need to search at least lines like c8Q+ Kxc8 and learn from searching some lines that white cannot prevent the squares d7,c8,b8,a8 from the black king. Uri
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.