Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:24:14 08/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2002 at 09:13:45, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Thanks for the clarification. I'm sure that working on such a dictionary of actually unsolvable positions would initiate a new aera of CC! BTW it's a pity that the month long work of GM Benjamin for DB2 is kept in secrecy. It's so bad for CC. Also, your idea is part of a more general approach for computers analysing in principal _all_ opening moves from 1 to 30. With good coordination this could become a worldwide project. The idea comes from a German who made the proposal in CSS. (BTW would you support the exclusion of the lines in question from the GM books?) Rolf Tueschen
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.