Author: Alessandro Damiani
Date: 13:18:20 07/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2002 at 12:32:43, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi all: >Plans is what the programs lacks, everyone say. OK, but maybe we should take a >more closer look that that word, "plan", and to see what really means in terms >of mental operations of a chess player. And then if they are esential to chess >perfomance instead than just for human-mental-chess-kind-of-perfomance. >I do not know, of course, how plans are made by IM's or GM's. But my guess is >that there are not too much different to ours, patzer or just experts planners, >that is to say, they make like us a general description of the situation and >what to do next. Sometimes this is verbalized in that kind of muted, uncomplete, >verbalization along which much mental processes go; sometimes even does no reach >-or surpass- that level and it is a kind of visual representation, even perhaps >a kind of locomotor predisposition, etc. I suppose this last one is the kind of >"description" of really good players. More verbalization equates less masterly >handling of an operation, except when writing or talking. >But then, how much useful is an appraisal in "general terms", no matter how it >was coded? I mean, beyond obvious situations where the mere word plan is >unnnecesary and pedantic, in the realm of complexity when positions does not >gives an inmediate answer to the question what-to-do, then I dare to say that >planning is less a good tool to play better than a sychological tool to feel you >are handling the game. My equation is simple: the more complex the situation, >the more the need -sychological need- for "plans" seems to be, but the more >complex the situation is, for the same token the less adequate a general plan >is. I mean: more complex means more poverty of a plan, less fittness, less >usefulness. I consider a plan for a complex situation like a crust that impedes >to see what is really happening in the board. I guess many games has been lost >less because of a bad plan than just for having a plan tha fix yor mind >obsesively in a purpose and so you becomes blind to reality. >In fact, chess programs probably has in his lack of plans at least part of the >reasons of his strenght. >BUt of course this is a tricky issue and I hope you will comment this, refute >this and teach me something I do not know. >My best >no plans fernando what I think: a plan contains an objective. the objective determines the path to reach it. the human selects the steps on the path by measuring how much they bring him/her nearer to the objective, depending on the current situation (which may change). there are two approaches to find the steps: analysis or synthesis. analysis means starting from the objective and going backwards to the starting point. synthesis is the vice-versa: going from the starting point to the objective. the branch-and-bound approach most used in chess engines is synthesis: from the starting point (the position) all paths are explored. the human does either analysis or a mixture of analyis and synthesis. that's why a human search is far superior than a brute-force (full-width) search done by an engine: the human has the objective in mind. now I have the objective to drink some icetea. let's see how I reach my kitchen... :) Alessandro
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.