Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 11:14:36 01/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2003 at 09:28:38, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >On January 17, 2003 at 09:06:17, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On January 17, 2003 at 08:53:01, emerson tan wrote: >> >>>How can you tell if a program plays like human? Rebel and Hiarcs were claimed to >>>be one of the most human-like programs but I dont know how to determine. I >>>estimate my elo rating to be only around 1500-1600. Maybe it would be better to >>>ask the Grandmasters. >>> >>>Which among the programs were praised by Grandmasters as Human-like? Gulko >>>played Fritz, Junior, Shredder and Hiarcs if I remember it right, which of these >>>was he impressed the most? >>> >>>To me, human-like play is able to formulate a plan, play for a theme, so far I >>>havent seen that in programs. The programs still play within its "field of >>>vision" >> >>I think it works better the other way around. What is a typical "computer move"? >>A move extremely unlikely to be made by a (strong) human, often looking very >>ugly or pointless. A good example is Bf8 from the second game Kramnik-Fritz - >>there are many other examples. >> >>A program that makes such moves very rarely could be thought of as more >>human-like. >> >>Of course the ideas what is a pointless computermove will be very different >>depending who the judge is and his/her understanding of the game. >> >>Many standard plans can be found in computergames, too. Alhough they don't >>really plan their play can look logical and instructive. For most programs it is >>quite easy to find extremely strange and illogical moves in other games though. >> >>IMHO most of the human-like descriptions when it is about current chessprograms >>are marketing hype. I don't see where Rebel or Hiarcs play more human-like than >>Fritz or Tiger. Just good marketing I think :) >> >>Peter > >Hi Peter, > >Although some people could readily identify what can be labeled as a computer >move, it is probably statistical more than anything else. We cannot absolutely >say that a certain "brilliant" move can never be made by a human. There are >those of us who may just be lucky to see through a combination that is triggered >by that one lucky brilliant move but not all the time. Also if we claim that a >certain move could "only be made by a computer" this is strapping human >ingenuity. Some great minds (such as those of masters and grandmasters in chess) >could possibly eventually in time come up with the same type of move. Of course >they do not have the advantage of speed that the computer does but I suspect >given lots of time, they'll be able to analyze the position to that point where >they would make the so-called computer move. > >I teach chess to kids and I have always been trying to distinguish between a >computer move with a human move. Some people would just shrug this off by saying >it can be analogous to a beginner's move in chess with that of a grandmaster >given the same position. To me, though very possible statistically, may not work >everytime because even beginners may have what is known by me as "inspired >intuition". > >Sandi I see the diference in typical computer chess or human chess in the fact that some programs do play in such a way that it looks they are creating plans And also play some positional moves in the right time Instead of only attacking a target which is not a real or good target to attack. Though this happens in human chess too. But not as often And it's more hidden. An even better position to see the diference is in a position with or or with only a few targets. And the right judgement to see when it's best to execute the attack Later or right away. The same counts for defending when you start to defend always first look if you need to defend. Or is there a counter attack or refutation against that attack (But Lasker already mentioned this. In his words.) Marc
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.