Author: Don Dailey
Date: 07:42:10 08/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 1998 at 07:30:41, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On August 01, 1998 at 03:13:12, blass uri wrote: >>>Whats next ?! Extraterrestrians on the moon ?! Nessi in Loch Ness ? >> >> >>I can give you an example for this. >>I did the nunn match between Junior5 and fritz5 won in 30 minutes per game >>+30 seconds per move(the result after 16 games 10.5:5.5) because of better >>positional understanding. > >Aha ! Good example. The one-eyed under the blinds ?! >What if Karpov loses in the nunn-matches against Krabat ?! >Is Karpov than also weaker in positional ?! >:-) > > >>here is an example to position Fritz5 understand better than Junior >> >>2r3k1/pq2rppp/b1p1p3/1n6/3PPP2/1N2Q1P1/6BP/RR4K1 >>black to move >>Fritz(white) understood that white is better in this position(it knows not only >>to count pawns) when Junior evaluated the position as a small advantage for >>black. > >Junior is a fast program. Normally it plays okish chess, not very spectacular, >but also not stupid. I see no reason why fritz should not play better in the >nunn-match positions than junior. John Nunn was asked to do a test for Fritz. >The result is a test where Fritz is the best. >What do you expect when you go into a shop and ask for a CD ? >You will get a CD. And what a surprise: You claim : Fritz is a CD ! >Of course it is !! >The whole nunn-test was designed to fit for fritz. If you don't believe ME >(because i am "biased") take a look in ComputerSchach and Spiele. There they >write that John Nunn was asked to do this test. > >>Junior positional understanding of its games is better than of the nunn match >>so I cannot say practically in games fritz has better positional understanding >>but Fritz has better general positional understanding. > >?!?!?!? "Logic is only the beginning" ? > >When juniors positional understanding in games is better, AS YOU WRITE YOURSELF, >why is fritz IN GENERAL better in positional understanding ?!?! >If you would have written, IN SPECIFIC CASE HERE IN THE NUNN-POSITION, I would >understand this logic, but --- is this a language problem ?!? > >>I looked in the games fritz5 played as white and did not win in the >>WMCCC and its evaluation in the end of the book opening was usually >>small advantage for black. > >Fritz5 played very weak in Paris. If you would have seen the main-lines and the >evaluations it had in its games, you would laugh as we have laughed in Paris. >Maybe you would also comment with funny sentences... > >I have no idea why it played that lousy. Maybe a bug ? Maybe >system-immanent-problem. Of course the version you have is NOT the version they >used. >Again : don't take my comments personal ! Thorsten, I think there is a factor in chess programs that are hard to determine. It may be more important to have an "integrated style". For instance your program may not be very good in most positions but perhaps it has an unusual talent to avoid these positions it hates? I believe it's hard to judge a programs positional play by a single number, but instead have to look at the whole, does it understand the positions that it actually gets in games? Does it hide it's own weakness well and does it force it's own strengths on the opponent? When I used to play in tournaments I noticed that each player has his own style. I often found myself getting the same kinds of games with each opponent. Some of these games it was quite clear the opponents knew how to play this kind of game, and yet their whole chess style seemed integrated around specializing in this kind of game. I would see them playing other players and they always were getting the same types of positions. Have you ever played non-consultation doubles chess? It's a lot of fun, you play with a partner and you take turns moving without consulting each other. You will find the actual quality of the games to be unusually low, each player is persuing a different logic about how to play the game. Two 2200 players will probably play 2000 chess doing this. It would not surprise me if two computers playing in this fashion play much weaker than the weakest individual computer. I really believe it's more about doing what you do best, and doing this well. Most good chess players are aware of very ideosyncratic players who get excellent results. I think this is why, they have specialized their game to a remarkable level. - 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.