Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:11:47 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 2002 at 20:31:41, Bob Durrett wrote: > >Imagine the following experiment: > >Several very strong chess players, preferably GMs, are put in a room and given >the task of categorizing a very large set of chess positions. Assume also that >they are willing participants. > >There is one large box filled with a large number of slips of paper. Each slip >will have a single chess position on it. No two slips of paper have the same >position. > >To obtain the positions on those slips of paper, a large number of positions >were previously selected, using some *completely* random process, from a large >database of high quality games. Being completely random, this process should >have produced roughly equal numbers of opening, middlegame, and endgame >positions. > >There are three large empty boxes, open at the top. One box is labeled >"tactical." Another box is labeled "positional." The third box is labeled "no >consensus reached within allotted time."ause, as I said earlier, the GM don't s The whole experiment has a flaw! Because our GM don't nee the differentiation between tactical and positional. THEY have solutions for every position with their over 50 or 60 thousand learned "positions". > >The GMs are to try to reach a consensus. [No fair cheating!] They have a >reasonable amount of time to examine each position. All positions for which >consensus is not reached go in the box labeled "no consensus reached within >allotted time." Otherwise, if the consensus is that the position is "tactical," >the slip of paper goes into the box labeled "tactical." Finally, if consensus >is reached that a position is "positional," it goes into the box labeled >"positional." > >Would it not then reasonable to DEFINE positions in the "tactical" box to be >"tactical" and the positions in the "positional" box to be "positional"? I >believe that would be reasonable. Yes, but as I said the GM results won't look like this. With weaker amatuers and - excuse me - the machines it could look different. That was my point in my first message. Or then in the reply to Bob Hyatt. > >I expect that, when all the slips had been examined, there would then be quite a >few slips in the "no consensus reached within allotted time" box. My >expectation is based on my perception that there are many positions that are, at >the same time, both "tactical" and "positional," or maybe halfway in between. > >What does this have to do with computer chess? A lot my collegue! :) This is exactly the problem of computerchess! The progs can't play positional chess. See Bahrain. > >A second experiment could then be performed. Each position in the "tactical" >box would be examined, this time, not by HUMANs but by the top chess engines. > >The purpose of the experiment would be to find tactical positions that presented >problems for the chess engines, requiring too much time for evaluation. > >The same could be done for the positional and indeterminate positions. > >What would be the findings of this experiment? > >If modern chess engines are good at evaluating tactical positions, then there >may be only a very few tactical positions found to be difficult for chess >computers. Right. > >If chess engines are poor at evaluating positional positions, then there may >turn out to be a large number of positions found to be difficult for chess >computers. Right. > >And what about the positions taken from the "no consensus reached within >allotted time" box? Your guess is as good as mine. No, my guess is that these positions are also too difficult for the machines. In principal all positions are difficult that are NOT tactical. Period. :) I simply don't have your mild and friendly temper. :) > >Now, here is a test: [You have five seconds to answer.] What are the >definitions of tactical and positional positions? [Tick, tick, tick.] Tactical: In shorter range a direct advantage could be produced. Positional: No direct advantage in material is obtainable but in a longer range experience told us that such position WILL be better for one side after such and such transformations. So it could well be that in a postional position a certain transformation is the key, but for example our progs don't see advantage (0.1 at maximum) and in lack of wisdom they play a completely nonsense move that THEN shows in the end that the formerly possible transformations etc with the advantage in the end had been missed. But too late then. How will you solve that problem for the actual progs. For that problem I made the provoking hypothesis of the physical impüossibility, because how you want to overcome the 0.1 fallacy? That was my contribution for today. It's late at night in Europe. Bob, kind regards from Rolf Tueschen > >Bob D.
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.