Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 10:51:11 09/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 1998 at 13:15:47, Don Dailey wrote: >On September 06, 1998 at 10:18:46, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On September 05, 1998 at 18:10:01, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>>I have always been interested in this question of intransitivity >>>between humans and chess programs. A lot of people claim, almost >>>always based on some anecdotal evidence, that various programs >>>are much better or weaker against humans or other programs and >>>that huge intrasitivities exist. My own thinking is that this >>>is minor, but I know I'll get a lot of disagreement here. >>> >>>I can't tell you how many times I have heard this type of >>>conversation: "I played a game with program >>>X and got crushed, then I played a game with program Y and >>>won easily. But when I played the two programs together, >>>program Y demolished program X." From a measly 3 games >>>can you come to the conclusion that program X is not very >>>strong against other programs but is "crushing" against >>>humans? >>> >>>But once you form a conclusion, then you start noticing the >>>events that reinforce your conlusion and you minimize the >>>events that do not. Usually, the opinion propogates to other >>>people if it gets stated enough times. >>> >>>Here are the ones I have heard but have serious doubts whether >>>they are true, or at least crystal clear: >>> >>> 1. Novag machines a much better against people but no good >>> against other programs. >>> >>> 2. Genius is not very good against people but crushes other >>> computers. >>> >>> 3. Genius is particularly good aginst people, but just so-so >>> against other programs (yes, I've heard both cases stated >>> as facts.) >>> >>> 4. Deep Blue will crush any computer but is not much better >>> that micro programs against humans. >>> >>> 5. Any kind of forward prunning or selectivity will help a >>> lot against humans but is not so good against computers. >>> >>> 6. Same as 5 but reversed. >>> >>> >>>- Don >> >>Also heard (often): fast searchers will do better against programs, while >>knowledgeable programs will do better against people. > >That is a good one! I forgot to mention this one, I've heard it a lot >of times too. I think this one is based on the idea that computers >ALREADY outsearch humans, but need to play "catch up" positionally. It >is easy to imagine someone reasoning this way and thus drawing this >conclusion. I think this kind of reasoning is a fallacy although I >have no idea if the original assertion is true or false. Except I >do believe that either way it's probably quite minor. > >I really think we have a long way to go in terms of how to think about >these things. We have not developed the correct terminolgy to even >talk about it. For instance: What is positional play? What is tactics? >What is a combination? You will get a different answer from each one >and the answer will not be one that can be used in any kind of proof. > >Shall we try it on the group? What is a combination? Give an answer >that has no ambiguity whatsoever. I have never seen one in any book, >but I've seen many attempts. You may be able to come up with a strict >definition of what a combination is, but I'll be many will disagree >about what this definition should be. Your definition will probably >not match peoples perception of what they think a combination is. > [Snip] >- Don An interesting game. I tried to give an objective definition of a combination. at first sight it seemed easier than it was in reality! Here is my attempt : Combination : A series of 2 or more consecutive moves involving the sacrifice or investment of material, and by which the player that initiated it gains some sensible benefits whatever his/her opponent play to counter it. The benefits could be a greater material win in the end or in another form (e.g. a huge space advantage, a strong passed pawn etc.). Having said that, I will now give (I did not look at it before writing mine) the one of IM Nicolas Giffard in his book "Le guide des echecs" (that could be translated as "The Guide of Chess". The translation is from me : Combination: A series of moves from one side provoking forced or almost forced replies, allowing to achieve a concrete goal. A combination correctly realized, this way, could bring a small advantage or as well the checkmate of the opponent. Serge Desmarais
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.