Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:13:09 02/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2003 at 15:01:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 10, 2003 at 14:48:58, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 10, 2003 at 14:28:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>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! >> >>It may be the only post of me in this thread because I do not think that there >>is a chance to get an agreement. > >:) > >Uri, and if you had consense then you woul stay? :) > > > >> >>It seems that you have a conception that say that computers cannot win without >>seeing something tactical. > >Your invoice ist extremely important again, because of the occasion now to >remind you of the importance of the relativity to GM!! (WhatI wrote you should >read always i comparison with GM, Uri.) > >Let me repeat. Comp must win with a tactical blow because compared to a GM a >comp doesn not have the talent to differentiate positional advantages. The >actual match has proven exactly that! > > > > > >> >>Computer can win games without a tactical error of the opponent by slowly >>increasing their positional advantage. > >NOT, if the advantage is too low! (Against a GM!!!) > > > >> >>Calculation of computers are not done only to win material and there are >>comp-comp games when the winner won thanks to increasing slowly the positional >>advantage. > >Please give me some evidence. The actualmatch showed how stupid Junior was when >he could't bite into something tactical. Remember h3, a3... etc. > > > >> >>I do not think that GM's need less advantage than computers to win but I guess >>that we will not get an agreement about it. > >I do not understand you. You mean that comps with their calculatio can equalize, >neutralize GM??? I think that comp with calculations can find good positional moves to defend(better than the moves of humans). After the human get an advantage computers often find the best defence and it is not only about avoiding to lose material because if you give the computer to choose a random move that does not lose material it will have no chance to defend. Humans are used to bad defence of humans so they have some evaluation based on experience. Their experience may be irrelvant if they play against best defence. A good example is the game of old version of Junior against peter Leko. Peter Leko offered a draw and junior declined and won the game. After the game Peter said that humans will agree to a draw in that position. The position of the draw offer was not better for Peter Leko but from the point of view of GM's it was better for peter leko(peter leko had better position some moves before he offered a draw but when he offered a draw the advantage disappeared and inspite of the fact that the evaluation of humans was that leko was better I believe that Junior was right to evaluate it different). Uri
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.