Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:11:14 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 08:55:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On December 18, 2002 at 22:34:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Here is the point. I will play you 100 games. And in _each_ game, at a >>place of my choice, I get to make two moves in a row. I believe I can win that >>match 100-0. >> >>If I am in a position where I make two moves in a row and _still_ can't do any >>damage to your position, my position sucks badly... > >But chess is no such game. Actually it is, and I'll be happy to play a match of games here with you to show why the "null-move observation" is so powerful for chess... It isn't the way a human does things, although the idea of "multiple moves in a row" is not an uncommon analysis approach to see how to get a piece to a particular place... > >Bob, you didn't read the text of that interview. Feist said that FRITZ could not >have been made so strong without a special selectivity. Now my argument goes >against such myst. I say that a super GM, a Kramnik, knows of many long-range >tools, other than just exchanging Q and so on. It also goes against that myst >because with high select. you must oversee something by force. Something with >deeper solution of course, because otherwise you (the computer) would have found >it. So, nullmove, if it is presented as THE solution for superior chess, is crap >IMO. It's not just the technique, it's more the propaganda myst. It isn't "THE" solution. It is an improvement to the original solution, which was a minimax tree search as proposed by Claude Shannon in the late 1940's. Then Newell, Simon and Shannon came up with alpha/beta which is must a better way to do minimax. Null-move is just a better way to do alpha/beta. It isn't a "breakthrough new approach"... > >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.