Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:37:10 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 11:11:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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"... And now just tell me your verdict, is a Kramnik capable of exploiting the neccessary selectivity of every commercial program, yes or no? :) I was reacting on the praising of selctivity by Feist. Of course if you had to speak about military secrets, then just nod one or two times... //1x is You are right// //2x You've quite well understood the weakness of the programs// Rolf Tueschen > > > > >> >>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.