Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:43:36 12/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2002 at 20:12:29, Bob Durrett wrote: >Rolf: Yours is a very long bulletin and I do tend to lose the forest for the >trees, but that is MY problem. It sounds like you are talking about something >I'm interested in, so here is my attempt to communicate my thoughts about what I >think you are saying. Forgive me in advance if I miss the mark occasionally. : >) Nothing to forgive here, Bob, but I must thank you for your very thoughtful answer. I think that the difficulty to understand me was caused by my weak English. I must make the following conclusions. You made a deep thinking, but unfortunately you missed my main point. But - you made this so clear, that I am able now to add the necessary arguments so that you then might be able to give me your thoughts in reply. Excuse me but I can't say it simpler. > >On December 03, 2002 at 12:54:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > ><snip> >>says that these tests can't show the strength of play or as it was >>claimed for this test, the "ability to analyse". > >My impression is that people here are using test positions for a different >purpose entirely. In other words, NOT to "show the strength of play" nor to >demonstrate a chess engine's "ability to analyze." > >Instead, they seem preoccupied in finding "holes" resulting from errors in the >design, configuration and coding of the algorithms they are using for "search" >and "position evaluation." When they find the holes, they modify their programs >to "plug" the holes. Of particular concern to these guys seems to be to >identify relative strengths and weaknesses in various algorithms. > >Your question to CCC members seems to be whether or not anyone thinks suitable >test positions COULD be found and used to "show the strength of play" &/or to >demonstrate a chess engine's "ability to analyze." Do I have your question >right? [Incidentally, the best definition of the word "analysis" might be >different depending on whether the analyzer is human or a chess engine.] I am in basic difficulty, because I am not a programmer. I quoted a programmer, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen. I don't know but I doubt hat he just wants to search for holes as you implied. As for the test-developers team they were interested in the analysing strength of the programs. Hope this helps. But that wasn't the center of my article. > ><snip> > >>testing with even these top class positions is nonsense. And why it has nothing >>to do, well, almost nothing, with _real_ strength. > >Well, that may be true if the purpose of testing is to determine "strength." >But that does not mean that testing is a waste of time for any other purpose. > ><snip> > >>Look, if you have a positional game of chess, where do you choose the point for >>a test? Of course, in this WM-Test of Gurevich et al you take the position when >>exactly a certain by the experts well commented and mostly beautiful move has >>been made. Because there the commentators said: only with this move he could >>conservate the slight advantage. > >If the testing were for the purpose of finding and plugging holes, then the >position in which the "key move" had to be made would be the right position to >test. [If the engine failed to pass the test, then the programmer might make up >additional related positions to test to help the programmer better understand >the "hole" and to then debug ["de-hole"] the program.] > >>But the truth is that often the engines see - in >>their actually possible realm - two solutions very closely together. And in >>general it could be said that for positional positions without tactics the evals >>are not very impressive at all. > >That does not seem to follow logically. The evaluation may depend on how the >evaluation coding works. One engine may do position evaluation differently from >another. Some may do a credible job of evaluating positional factors. What I wanted to say was that there are three aspects of importance. The above is just one. But we are still not at the main point. > ><snip> > >>that "nice move" (that caught th attention of the commentators) is >>by no means the most important moment for the decision making. > >I do not see the logic of this assertion. True for some cases and not true >others would be what I would expect. I see what you mean. But I think you won't deny that in a game of chess there are no isolated positions. That was it what I wanted to explain with the Tartakower quote. Sorry, I brought that in an adition in a new article to Bob, this time Bob Hyatt. :) Here I can't see what you mean with logical following because I count simply several aspects. Of course this one doesn't follow logically from the prior. It is a NEW one. > >As an example, consider the buildup leading to a king attack. I see now that you missed the main point of the whole message. Look, we are not talking about just positions. For tactical positions you are absolutely right. I was talking about "positional" positions. Positions that are allegedly testable in the mentioned WM (=Wch) test by Gurevich. And the header of my message says it exactly what I meant: positional test positions are physicaly impossible. Because, and that is important, the development is so important. I don't mean development in the INFORMATOR language! I mean the development of the chess game up to that particular positional position. That is a position without tactics, so without a Kings attack, but also without clear goals at all! At least for amateurs and chess programs. That is the point! Please try to read my message again. Of course for a GM, such positions are clear like any other positions. For them, with the over 50 000 different remedies, they know what to play in every position. Now I am concluding that if you take a Wch position (of that positional kind) where the Wch had found a beautiful solution, and let's say the machine plays the same move, that this could have happened 1) out of totally false reasons or 2) because our program could have never attempted to get to that position earlier on because it simply cannot ""see" the advantages of such a position. So I was concluding, that if you want to test machines for such positional play you must take earlier position. But because of the actual blindness that can't work either. So the insinuation that someone had "created" a positional test because he has taken positional positions out of Wch practice, that claim is completely rubbish. I think the other Bob answered me in this way too. He says of course, that it is possible to test if for example a program understands the advantages you have with two combined and advanced pawns. Well, that might function, if the overall difficulty/ complexity of the position is not too difficult. Because we have in chess the law of the always concrete position. Only in theory we can talk about principles. ;) >Early in the >process, setting up the preconditions for a successful attack may preoccupy the >human attacking chessplayer. If chess engine position evaluation software were >designed to look for such preconditions, then that evaluation software would be >doing "positional assessments." But I don't see that setting up of >preconditions is necessarily any more important to success of the attack than >finding the concrete "key move(s)." The other Bob always taught us that even in tactical positions you can find the key move for the wrong reasons. That could be fatal in the end. But I know what you mean, for such tactics it's much easier than for "positional" positions. Thanks for the pleasure of this exchange. Rolf Tueschen > >Bob D. > ><snip> > >> >>Rolf Tueschen > ><snip>
This page took 0.01 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.