Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:13:45 08/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2002 at 08:52:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 27, 2002 at 07:43:26, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >If you meant that these positions are added to the GM books with looong >variations included, all coming from human masters and not from the program >itself, I would not appreciate it. No I meant to add knowledge to help programs to play better by search and evaluation but before adding knowledge it is important to know exactly what is missing. I think that having the positions when programs blunder may be prodctive for programmers. I do not think good programmers are going to hurry to fix a mistake in one position by knowledge because the problem is to define small number of rules that can help in a lot of positions so they first need to observe a lot of positions when programs blunder and only later define some rules when the target is to avoid most of the mistakes without creating different mistakes. 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.