Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:58:40 01/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 1999 at 13:40:19, Mika wrote: >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 You are bordering on witchcraft now. The "a computer can only know as much as its program" is a cloudy statement. It won't know anything that the programmer doesn't know, but when you combine knowledge and search, the sum is often greater than the individual parts by a huge amount. IE I don't do anything about coordinating squares in king and pawn endings, yet crafty can solve many of these instantly with a deep search (fine #70 was long thought to be unsolvable by a computer, ever. It is now solved in a fraction of a second by most). So it is more than possible that knowledge plus a deep search produce something totally new and unexpected... We see this every day on ICC.
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.