Author: Mika
Date: 10:40:19 01/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 1999 at 12:23:50, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 06, 1999 at 10:07:58, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: > >[snip] > >>>I think a more interesting opinion question is: "Do you think that a 3000 rated >>>chess program available to the general public (including GMs) will drastically >>>change the way in which GMs approach the game of chess?" >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>KarinsDad >> >> >>Now this is a quite interesting question! One which may well be of practical >>value within the next few years. What would a 3000 rated program do to GM's, and >>how would it change their approach to chess? >> >>I was actually thinking about this yesterday. I was watching a fantastic speed >>game between Ban and Crafty on ICC. One onf the most fascinating games I have >>ever seen (human or computer). Crafty had 2 knights and a pawn vs. Ban's 2 >>bishops. For most of the game, Crafty was being amazingly creative in corralling >>the bishops. Using techniques that only a profoundly strong computer could >>manage. Now I'm a 2150, and a pretty experienced player, and I suddenly realized >>that I simply couldn't understand much of what was going on. I simply wasn't >>good enough. maybe with several hours and the help of Crafty, I could, but in >>real time, I simply was left to appreciate the beauty of the game without really >>understanding how and why things were happening. >> >>What happens when some program makes Shirov and Kasparov feel like I did >>yesterday? It's not far-fetched. I'm rated higher than about 99% of the >>tournament players in the country, and I'm already baffled by the computers >>sometimes. I've seen speed games where good GM's totally lose understanding of a >>position against Crafty. It's very impressive to watch. >> >>As an opponent, I've virtually given up on being competitive with the top >>programs on my M2 266. Crafty, CM6K, Fritz5...they all hammer me mercilessly. My >>record against Fritz5 on this machine is something in the neighborhood of 1 win, >>20 draws, and about 125 losses. >> >>Since I can't play against it full strength, I have focused more on letting it >>be my teacher. Watching it play out positions where I had difficulty in choosing >>a move. I'm guessing that within a few years, it's going to be this way for the >>average GM. It is already this way for the average master. >> >>But a fun thing is that even the GM's won't understand the games that are going >>on. Generally, I can understand (in real time) games by human players up to 400 >>or 500 points better than I am. I'm guessing that's fairly average. I'd like to >>find out if weaker GM's watchin Crafty have similar difficulties understanding >>what's going on. > >Chris, > >This actually hits on a theory of mine regarding chess which is very pertinent >to computer chess as well. > >The theory basically goes that players "accidently" fall into losing positions >that suddenly appear within the event horizon. > >A player (human or computer) makes a move, which from his chess knowledge and >current depth lookup, appears to be a strong move. However, a move or two later, >this move suddenly no longer appears to be good and effectively loses the game. >This is seen easier with computers since their score will go from +1 to -4 in a >matter of 3 moves (6 ply) or less. > >This means that even the superGMs have this problem. However, since they are >using a better and more sophisticated set of heuristics than the class B player, >the problem is not as obvious and usually not as fatal. > >Once a 3000 rated program hits the market, the superGMs will be able to use it >to discover their (granted minimally) flawed heuristics which can lead in >certain position to inferior positions and come up with new heuristics that >enable them to improve themselves. > >One of the main problems that the superGMs have is that there are very few >people (zero) in the world with the skill set and the desire to learn from. A >class B player can (given the financial resources and the desire) always find a >master to learn from. The superGM cannot and must effectively learn on his own >(not always the best learning technique). A 3000 rated program (especially if it >had a sophisticated analysis mode) could be that "teacher" that the superGMs >could use to improve. > >:) > >KarinsDad > >> >>Very interesting topic! >> >>Chris Dorr I agree that the superGMs would learn from a program rated 3000, if such a thing were possible. However, isn't it also true that a chess programmer can only encode the knowledge which is available at the current time? Chess programmers can't program knowledge that doesn't exist. So, the program that is rated 3000 achieves its rating because it is simply consistently good all the time, which is not something that human beings are good at. Accordingly, a program might actually achieve a tremendous rating (perhaps not 3000, however), without advancing chess knowledge much at all. The improvement for the superGM would be in identifying their own deficiencies, not in developing novel heuristics for better game play. In other words, the 3000 computer might just amount to the same old tired chess principles projected out over 25 or so ply. That will get you a great rating, but it makes the machine only worthly of imitation, not a real teacher. IMHO, Mika
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.