Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:43:26 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 06:51:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 27, 2002 at 04:44:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 26, 2002 at 18:13:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >><snipped> >>>>Here is the list of the programs above 2600. >>>>You can see that the porgrams played usually more than 400 games >>> >>>Yes, Uri, I knew it. But! I wrote "that could be added up". >> >>I did not understand what you mean by "could be added up" so I ignored it. >>I understand your point that learning is important in their matches when it is >>not important in real tournaments when programs are allowed to change book >>between games. > >Although we have almost coincidence, I can always find new divergences and new >ideas to explain certain things. So the debate isn't boring at all. > >The new idea here is the tendency of CC experts, and you are one of them, to >always finding new tricks to cripple human chess. I do not say that this >crippling is the ratio of CC and a conscient behaviour. It's more a fallacy if >you once concentrate too much on 'performance' without reflecting the overall >situation in chess. For me CC is a part of chess. > >Let me elaborate this point. > >For me the learning function was a technology which allowed the chess program to >come closer to correct chess! But if I read you and others, I understand that >the learning has only one single goal, namely to prevent that a clever opponent >could repeat certain lines _no matter_ if the line itself is good or bad >objectively, but because later, perhaps due to some different failure, the game >was lost. For me, honestly, this is a pervert understanding of chess. I for one >would say that if objectively the position is good, or at least not bad, it >shouldn't be excluded by the learning function only because later the game was >lost. The perversion is even that if a certain continuation is favorable for the >machine, that it's still deactivated because tue to later events the game can't >be kept open by the machine. This is foolish! I would recommand that the >programmers should better study possibilities how they could teach their progs >to understand the positions of such lines. Please take all what I write with the >certainty that I do not know exactly what really happens with e.g. the learning >function. So please do not reject the whole context only because a technical >detail might be false. It should also be clear that I do not address you in >particular, since you are trying to get to the meant most of the time. Because >otherwise we end up in endless circles of repeatitions. > >Let me mention the books too. I am not against books! But I am against books >whose sole meaning is to put the machine into the position to play position that >they couldn't play out of principal weaknesses. This is what I call cheating or >boasting or fraud, all terms please without juridical implications but only in >relation to fairness and gentleman sports. - >For me it is absolutely out of imagination why CC experts are using such >technology. Is it the dream of perfection? I don't think so, because why then CC >experts can sleep a single night without nightmares when they think of the known >absolute weaknesses of the progs. Why don't they concentrate on these weaknesses >instead of using GM books, whose deep meaning the machine can't understand at >all!? I do not think that programmers in general are not interested in fixing the weaknesses of programs in the opening but it is not a simple task. programmers change the evaluation function of chess programs to do them better. I think that having an epd file of the most common positions in human-human games that most programs cannot find the right move in dew minutes may be a good idea. I believe that it is possible to fix the evaluation and the search rules of programs in order to help them to find the right moves. 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.