Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:40:29 02/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2003 at 15:13:09, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Having a good point here you should not overestimate Junior. Junior only looks so good because Kasparov created a smoke screen. But look at that first game and also _you_ know that Junior is toast. Rolf Tueschen > >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.