Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:59:04 03/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2003 at 19:35:30, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. Interesting gedankenexperiment. However, there is no meat in the sandwitch.
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.