Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:28:42 02/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2003 at 12:23:38, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On February 10, 2003 at 09:38:16, Sune Fischer wrote: > >[snip] > >>I think humans often like to setup some kind of minefield, get into positions >>where the opponent is under pressure and needs to be careful not to make a weak >>move. It doesn't work with computers, they will calmly find a way through the >>maze, and possibly come out on the other side in a better position. Let me for 1x give a school teacher. Always I give arguments and my posts are longer than the patience of the readers, but here I make it short. This concept of maze is misunderstood. Of course maze works, only it depends on the form of maze. Task for Monday: Waht is important against comps to make a maze successful? > >[...] > >>I generally would trust the evaluation of GM's more than computers, but having a >>positional advantage and profitting from it is two different things, particular >>against computers. Objection, please sit down! Pos. adv. is an objective fact and also valid agaist comp, more, even more valid against comp!!! Rule 1: Pos. adv. per se is only relevant for GM and masters [Excercise: why is it irrelevant for submasters and patzers?] > >I like your example of a minefield. It's a good image for what I often think >when I hear that "player X has a positional advantage". > >A position is either won, lost or drawn. That's it. A "better position" only >exists in the area of "imperfect chess". Objection. Chess is imperfect! >It's not important how bad a position >looks like or how many ways there are in order to "go wrong". Objection. Great nonsense! Pos. adv. is not because a position LOOKS good for you. But beca use, attention, a GM would tranform into a won position. Pos. adv. does NOT mean, looks only good but in real it's equal. Exercise: Why GM has advantages in the exploitation of pos. adv.? >A position is won, >if there's at least _one_ forced way to win and that's it. Objection. Also this is a very sloppy statement. There is no way to prove the one and only winning line. There is no chess of best moves. Law 1: A pos. better position remains better if a move could be found who is better than equalizing, or in other words the move who preserves the adv! >[...] >Now I'm not saying that computers play perfect chess, but it's known/common that >in order to transform "a winning position" into "a won position" exact play is >needed somewhere. That's typically the tactical blow which wins material. Objection: That is not false but it is not right. :) Law 2: In chess there is no objectivity. (There is only a state relative to the strength of the player. A GM needs less advantage in a position to be called won.) > >The computers are getting stronger and are almost perfect-playing opponents when >it comes to these tactical blows mentioned above. Objection!!! A GM can win without that even a big tactical blow existed!!! Rule 2: Computers are no GM because they need tactical blows to win while GM are much better because they need less advantages to win! > And the stronger they get, the >less likely it is for a human to be able to transform a winning position into a >won position. Objection. Law 3 (CC): GM will always be stronger because comps will never be able to differentiate between good and bad in positions without tactical meaning. > >So, basically a position X can be "a winning position" against another human, >but at the same time can almost be "a lost position" against the computer, >because _the path_ from "winning" to "won" is so incredibly small that it's >unlikely the human will find it. Objection. This is only possible in endgame tables but not the middle game. > >Ok, I stop rambling here now. Just some food for thoughts maybe. :) Objection! This was not ramblig. That was one of the best postings since I began here in May 2002. Food for thoughts for sure, Sargon! Hope I could further inspire you. Rolf Tueschen > >Sargon
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.