Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:46:15 07/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2003 at 05:53:21, martin fierz wrote: >On July 01, 2003 at 14:10:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 01, 2003 at 05:41:31, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>When a GM is contemplating a move, he doesn't say to himself, "Hmmmmm. I would >>>give the resulting position a score of 1.723". >> >>Actually, he _does_. >> >>"Nb5 drops a pawn but has compensation in the attack on the enemy king." >> >>"Nf3 maintains material equality but my position is quite cramped." >> >>etc. >> >>I think that a human does _far_ more than just say "this is equal, winning >>or losing." I know I do. And the GM players I talk to seem to do this as >>well. While they might not do millipawns (or even centipawns) they certainly >>do fractions of a pawn in positional compensation. > >i think the main difference in human/computer eval is not what the original >author thinks. i agree with bob that players do think in such terms, e.g. i gave >up a pawn and i have "about enough compensation" or "some compensation but too >little" or "more than enough compensation" for it. this is more or less a direct >translation from numbers to words or vice versa. Objection 1. >the real difference lies elsewhere. humans can look at a position and say things >like "this is probably better for white but it's very unclear" or "this is a >technical position which is either a white win or a draw". when a human has a >choice between the above two possibilities, it is a matter of style which one he >chooses. a computer might give both of these positions the same number, and does >not choose based on style. Objection 2. This is all bogus. Also what Bob says. We should differentiate if a GM looks at a position at the occasion of analysis or if he plays a game himself. No GM plays a game with a continual evaluation of positions, not to mention stupid numbers. Everybody here underestimates something else, so the second objection. A GM is seeking for positions "he" knows how to handle to win or draw or with a minimum risk or such, depending on the actual need in a tournament or match. GM are NOT searching for continual evaluations of single positions in an objective understanding. It might be that they use such terms when they talk to people who have no idea what GM really do during a game. It is very difficult to verbalize one's thought process. So with a CC programmer it is well a good thing to talk about "evaluations". Martin, a GM would more say, if he says something at all: "nahh, not this time, a draw is enough" or "today I will test him if he can stand the pressure" [such a term has no equal in evals] and stuff like that! You see, it is a completely different level of thoughts. It's about motivation, stamina, specific opponent, Friday the 13th... blood-thirst. :) Rolf P.S. That is also why JUNIOR is not a GM player because he has no sound idea of compensation. That is why it was so evil of Kasparov to offer a draw after RxNc3! It was as if a 3 y. old would box a 2 meter giant and suddenly the giant says "Ok, draw agreed, I dont want you to destroy my jaws with these terrible uppercuts...". - - ROFL! > >cheers > martin > >>>Such an evaluation is nonsense anyway. There should properly be only 3 >>>evaluations: >>> >>>1. Winning position >>> >>>2. Drawing position >>> >>>3. Losing position >>> >> >>That would be great if it were possible, but except for forced mates and >>forced repetitions, there are no such "exact evaluations" in the actual >>game. A GM might say "this is winning" but it is based on very fuzzy >>"computation" done mentally based on past experience and preferences. >> >> >> >> >> >>>It would be nice if a program could work as follows: >>> >>>"nb5. This position contains a possible bishop trap". >>> >>>"nd5. This puts more pressure on the opponent's king" >>> >>>"Opponent classification: bishop trap success rate = 25%" >>> >>>"Opponent classification: king attack success rate = 15%" >>> >>>"Choice = nb5". >> >>That is about "discernability". It is a tough problem but a well-known >>issue in computer chess. >> >> >> >>> >>>-g
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.