Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 16:34:25 01/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2003 at 15:59:35, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >On January 17, 2003 at 14:14:36, Marc van Hal wrote: > >>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 > >Well, Marc, I wish it were as easy as you have explained for myself but if I got >you right, it has something to do with the timing of attacking a target or >defending our pieces or position under attack, right? Although what is the >proper timing would be my next question. I think the inclination of an average >player would be to 'react' which is in line with your premise. To react would >mean to either attack or defend perceived threat whether along ones plan or >strategy or defend when one perceives danger (unless as you say along with Em. >Lasker you have a greater threat). This could be but some people I know are >masters of Zwichenzug for instance and they always seem to move and in-between >move and not react. In my experience they have a 50-50% chance of winning so >perhaps basing the distinction between computer or shall we say grandmaster >moves and those of plain-vanilla players by their reaction time may also have >only 50-50% chances. I don't know. Perhaps in the future you may write about >your hypothesis and it will help my research to make myself a better chess >teacher. > >Thanks for the thoughts. > >Sandi The game of chess is all about time or tempo and space (I would like to add to it control of the centre) (I am not the first one who said it DR Tarasch said it before me No mather how many principles have been refuted through time This one will never change. ) (The diference between a good player and a worse player is that the worse player is not playing trough a plan and many times hasitate while a good player Is more playing through his plan. Based on the princples of opening and the midle game And above all again the fight for tempo. Hasitation should not be confused with propylactical moves. ) One of the rules on how to deal with prophylactical moves was explained verry well by Eric Schiller in the piece he wrote about the Sicilian If one side is making a move which violates a principle your intiteld to violated that same principle. only in some circumstances it might be a mather of calculation if you want to violated it But if you do in some positions it helps you to keep the tempo. (Which ofcourse escpecialy is seen well in the Sicilian where Black violates many of the old principles Where Black on an early stage plays a6 In some circumstance White then plays Nb3 To keep control over the centre square d5. Which is a prophylactical move but in a deeper sence it isn't Black plays a6 for the reason to avoid an Attack from b5 and in the mean time makes a usefull space! for it's queen it also defends the centre for a while and it later on can be used for counter attack by moves like b5 Also moves like h3 h6 are prophlactical moves used in closed systems to keep control over the centre Like for instance in the Ruy Lopez to suport d4 from preventing Bg4 or in other systems h6 to suport d5 by preventing Bg5 The bad part about h3 and h6 is that in some cicumstances they can become a serious weakness after castling kingside Now that was the part about prophlactical moves You can get your next lesson for 150$ Lectures during an hour in which I explain how to see when to defend or attack or wait before to execute your attack . Marc van Hal Chess analyst,theoretican and chess teacher .
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.