Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:13:23 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 12:37:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 thought so. After the last match I am not so sure. :) > >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 I think the _biggest_ problem is the lack of real "learning". With a human opponent, when I catch him in a mistake (or vice-versa) we _both_ learn and that likely won't influence the next game. Against a computer, this is not the case, and that is a _serious_ flaw. > > > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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.