Author: KarinsDad
Date: 12:44:18 01/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 1999 at 13:40:19, Mika wrote: [snip] > >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 One thing you are forgetting. Since a computer can log the reasons why a move is inferior (regardless of the number of ply down), the superGM (or any player with such a chess program) can analyze the logs and make determinations for him/herself. The program can even use the logs in conjuncture with it's analysis mode i.e. let's examine the top 20 lines that the computer was considering as good (based on time spent in that line) until some other factor indicated that the line was inferior. From this, a human player may be able to analyze the position and better understand chess concepts for that position and improve his/her game. If Kasparov and Shirov were using such a program for analysis, you can bet money that chess knowledge would be advanced. As to programming knowledge that doesn't exist, almost all current chess programs have limited chess knowledge as compared to humans (I'm not talking tactical knowledge acquired via the search engine and the evaluator, but rather concrete positional and strategic chess knowledge; programmer's don't beat me up on this statement; I know that there is some of this knowledge programmed in). This can be shown by: a) No chess program can consistently beat the best players in the world in standard time controls if the program is limited to 10 ply. b) Kasparov, one of the best players in the world, usually looks only 3 to 5 moves (6 to 10 ply) deep on the majority of his positions. If you limit the chess program to the effective event horizon of the best human players (and yes, I realize that a lot of players look deeper in key variations), then the best chess programs are not as effective as the best humans. In other words, they do not possess nearly as much chess knowledge. The real reason that chess programs can compete with the best players is that they are: 1) relatively consistent (they don't get sick, tired, or distracted) and 2) they can search much deeper than humans in most positions, hence, they can find good moves based on an ability to detect when a human makes an inferior move due to reasons beyond the human's event horizon, but within the chess program's event horizon. KarinsDad
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.