Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 21:25:03 12/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2003 at 21:23:25, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 31, 2003 at 20:58:08, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On December 31, 2003 at 13:43:42, Steven Edwards wrote: >> >>>On December 31, 2003 at 13:31:56, Ed Trice wrote: >>> >>>>This was the Qh5+!! sacrifice, correct? >>> >>>Yes; a mate in ten. One variation found by Symbolic's low level search goes: >>> >>>(1. Qh5+ Nxh5 2. fxe6+ Kg6 3. Bc2+ Kg5 4. Rf5+ Kg6 5. Rf6+ Kg5 6. Rg6+ Kh4 7. >>>Re4+ Nf4 8. Rxf4+ Kh5 9. Rg3 Bxe6 10. Bg6#) >> >>Symbolic is an extremely interesting project, and I hope you succeed in creating >>a super strong engine with your unusual approach. However, forced mate >>positions >>like this one are not a good way to measure progress. Solving them quickly is >>easily >>achieved by more conventional methods (the above position is solved in 7 plies >>and >>only a couple of seconds by Gothmog), and does not necessarily imply high >>playing >>strength in normal games. >> >>Tord > > > >Solving it in approximately the same time with a totally new approach would be >extremely encouraging I would say. > >Current computer chess programs are light years behind human intelligence. Mine >included. More "human-like" or "intelligent" approaches are really welcome and a >very promising field. > >I'm fed up with Crafty or Fritz or Chess 4.x clones. I'm fed up with chess >calculators. Show me something else now. > >It is going to be a very hard road. But there is much more merit in it than in >writing yet-another-alphabeta-nullmove-hashtables-computer-chess-program. > >I would *LOVE* to see Chess Tiger torn into pieces by a Symbolic-like approach. >The whole computer chess field needs to have his ass kicked by something new, >because the current approach is coming to an end: it's very good, but has taught >us very little about what intelligence is. It's like the Matrix movies: lots of >promises at the begining, only disappointement in the end. > >Just one warning: avoid falling in the Botvinik trap. > > > > Christophe Amen. Thanks. For example, just to confirm what you said, I love the old Axon program (a local project here, at the University of Nis) that used only a handful of search techniques. It played speculative and aggressive chess and did so well against humans. Now, well, it is getting to be very competitive --but, man, is it boring... Yes, the Symbolic approach appears very interesting. About the Botvinnik trap: it actually ended with Kentavr (Centaur) by V. Vikhrev (1992?). Still, I like to play against that oldie that considered only two "rival" good moves and neglected the rest. Can be downloaded somewhere on the Net. I wish to all of you a great New Year. Djordje
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.