Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:35:30 03/13/03
With this message I want more answers and explanations than simple opinions. For a longer time now we see how programmers try to make their products smarter. So it is a good idea to implement say a rejection of the Trojan Horse Sacrifice. But real chess players do know that this is just one single method to bust chess computers. Eduard Nemeth has actually found a new hobby with his discoveries of how stupid the engines still are. For instance he proves that Black does also reject the Trojan if Black could win immeadiately when White has played without the Ra1 so that Black could take Nb1 if the white Queen moves away to h5... But all such examples are given without a good description. Let me try a first explanation - although I am NOT an expert of computerchess programming. To me it seems that we have here a typical fallacy of computerchess. Chess is a game that is dominated by the reign of the concrete details of a situation. Now the point is that even in chess we follow certain rules (and we know) IF the concrete changes in the position are 'irrelevant'. But how do you want to program relevancies? All what you could do is implementing a defense - roughly, but you can't do it with flexibility! The program can't differentiate if something is suddenly important. Or let me assume, that this could well be done technically but then that would be so time consuming that the overall strength of the program would decrease. So, now a little reminiscence of something I often repeated already. Given the human super GM would see a real incentive in winning agains chess computer programs, they would study more about programming, then they would understand what we have now discussed and then they would make pudding out of the DEEP THINGS. Because flexibility (not a chance rotating) in a sense of smartness is impossible to implement. All the programmers can do is implementing a lot of suspense. But by definition that could be discovered after a few training sessions. And then when all tricks have been detected, computerchess is solved! The actual show-events however do prove NOTHING because there was no incentive to find out for the players. They got their recompensation right at the beginning of the show. Rolf Tueschen
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.