Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 03:41:32 09/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2004 at 08:38:38, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On September 26, 2004 at 07:58:24, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On September 25, 2004 at 15:16:52, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On September 25, 2004 at 14:52:42, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>> >>>>On September 25, 2004 at 11:19:52, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 25, 2004 at 11:12:19, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 25, 2004 at 09:47:23, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 25, 2004 at 03:57:30, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On September 25, 2004 at 01:56:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On September 24, 2004 at 13:05:52, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On September 24, 2004 at 12:09:00, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On September 23, 2004 at 13:31:55, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On September 23, 2004 at 01:44:08, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On September 23, 2004 at 01:31:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On September 22, 2004 at 06:58:33, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On September 22, 2004 at 05:56:02, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is not a benefit for a weak engine as it will also probably play weak moves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the middlegame which will be properly exploited by the stronger engine. Dont >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>u think so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it's not the issue whether a strong engine will beat a weak engine. that is so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by definition :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the question is: take 2 engines of approximately equal playing strength, give >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>one of them a good book, and look what happens in a match. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i believe that for 2 weak engines the difference will be larger in the match >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>result than for 2 strong engines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>now we only need somebody to test this hypothesis :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cheers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> martin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I made very many tests and I can make statements on this matter: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>1. A program stronger 150 points than another will win nearly all games no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>matter how bad it comes out from the openings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>2. The stronger the program is the most important the book is. Of course weak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>lines should be checked and removed to avoid loosing positions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>3. The weaker the program is the less the book is important. The reason is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>it will find very many positions where it does not know how to play them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>P.N. Do not take the Shredder - Hydra example to state the opposite, because I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>knew we had some weak lines in the book, but for personal reasons could not work >>>>>>>>>>>>>>on them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course anybody can state the opposite, but my statements are supported by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>thousand of games and more than 100 engines/prototype testing at all level and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>with very many different harware. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have no time and williness to do deeper into these matters, so it is up to you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to believe me or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sandro >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>At the very weak level books are not important because the program that get >>>>>>>>>>>>>better position cannot use it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>At the very high level books are also not important because the program can find >>>>>>>>>>>>>better moves by itself. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>No, this is today totally wrong in at least 95% cases. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>It depends on the positions, but in some positions they should search at 64/108 >>>>>>>>>>>>to be able to do it and I do not think any chess program is able to reach those >>>>>>>>>>>>depths now. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I have made several tests running fast harware for more than one day and the >>>>>>>>>>>>moves and the evaluation they got was poor compared to real ones. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Depends on what "real ones" means. Humans also make mistakes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes, but I was referring to deep analysis of a position, not games. Some times >>>>>>>>>>deep analysis takes days, months or even longer...otherwise is not deep...:-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>An example: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 can computers answer >>>>>>>>>these questions: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>1. Is this the best line for white? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I guess that humans cannot answer better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They do...ECO volums are about 80% reliable. Even if there is still a lot of >>>>>>>room for improvements this does not mean that the computers will improve theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Just consider what follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1. Current theory is based on more than 100 years games played by many strong >>>>>>>players also at corrispondance chess too. >>>>>>>2. Top engines do not have more chess knowledge of GMs and they do not see >>>>>>>deeper. A program looking at 18/44 see 9 full moves as average, 22 on the best >>>>>>>line and maybe 4-5 on some lines which are cut early. This is not much compared >>>>>>>to deep analysis by GMs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If the programs cannot use the knowledge made by strong players they need to see >>>>>>>quite deeper that they can. Of course there are positions where they look ahead >>>>>>>is already enough and on these they are dangerous players, but these are mostly >>>>>>>tactical ones or where material gain is an important factor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Positions where a positional compensation for given material is important are >>>>>>>not handled well unless the look ahead can see how to get back material and or a >>>>>>>mate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Of course weak reply can make weak moves very strong, but it depends who is the >>>>>>>opponent... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>2. Is 2...d6 best move for black? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Again I guess that humans cannot answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They gave a 80% reliable answer...the future will see this percentage raise more >>>>>>>and more... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Probably 2...d6 is one of some drawing moves but I cannot be sure about it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>3. Is this line best line for black? >>>>>>>>>4. What is white best move at move 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, >>>>>>>>>18, 19 and 20? >>>>>>>>>5. What are the best reply for black on those moves and the white best line? >>>>>>>>>6. How deep should a chess program need to search to give these answers? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Uri, do you really think a chess program can give better answers (moves) than a >>>>>>>>>strong human player? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I do not know. >>>>>>>>I think that in most cases they will give moves with the same quality. >>>>>>>>In some cases espacially in moves 11-20 they may give better moves if you give >>>>>>>>them a long time to analyze. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My very many tests show that this is happening very seldom. >>>>>> >>>>>>The big question is if the engine's moves are really worse, or just different. >>>>> >>>>>Most of the time worse...a few times different. >>>>> >>>>>Most of the time worse because the horizonth effect is giving not engough >>>>>depth...a few times different because they do not follows rules as humans do and >>>>>look also moves which will be normally weak, so humans do not investigate on >>>>>them usually... >>>>> >>>>>Sandro >>>> >>>>In this case, a competent correspondence chess player should crush an engine >>>>running without human assistance. >>> >>>I agree. >>> >>>> >>>>IMO a lot of people don't trust computer moves, because they often look so ugly >>>>- but in fact those moves are actually not so weak. >>> >>>Of course not so weak, but a GM would see that they are not the best and >>>increase the advantage move after move...normally a GM makes at least 2 mistakes >>>and some minor ones in a game, but on correspondance chess it would be >>>different... >>> >> >>Yes - but sometimes the computer's move is in fact better, and the humans are >>wrong to override it. > >We are saying the same thing...this is a tactical move and the computer does not >need to look that much ahead to find this move. White position is solid, so the >rook can capture. > >Some times novelties comes from the computers, but also from weak players that >play some interesting moves without understanding how good they are and the GMs >pick up the idea and refine them into a specific plan/home preparation. > >More than this specific move I think Gary was afraid of specific preparation by >the opponent. > >Normally it is better bring out novelties rather than facing the ones from the >opponents. > >Sandro Rxb7 is a hard move for a human to "understand". White gives up the d4 pawn, which is normally very important in this opening. Computers are much more flexible in their handling of positions than humans, they are more ready to all of a sudden do something completely different. Here is another example, from a previous thread here. [D] rnbq1rk1/3nbpp1/1p5p/p1Ppp4/NP1P3P/3B1N1R/P4PP1/R1BQK3 w Q - 0 13 This happened in a game of mine. My opponent had prepared this, and concluded that black is winning here. After the game, I analyzed myself with Shredder, and agreed with him. In fact, the unnatural, inconsistent "computer move" 13. dxe5 is equalizing here for white. I simply ignored Shredder when it was suggesting it ... Vas >> >>Consider the following position: >> >>[Event "BGN World Chess Championship"] >>[Date "2000.10.10"] >>[Round "2"] >>[White "Kramnik, Vladimir"] >>[Black "Kasparov, Garry"] >> >>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Nf3 c5 8. >>Be3 Qa5 9. Qd2 Bg4 10. Rb1 a6 >> >>[D] rn2k2r/1p2ppbp/p5p1/q1p5/3PP1b1/2P1BN2/P2Q1PPP/1R2KB1R w Kkq - 0 11 >> >>Here Kramnik sprung a very strong novelty - the previously ignored "computer >>move", 11. Rxb7. Kasparov was not ready for it, and did not repeat the Gruenfeld >>in the rest of the match. >> >>Vas >> >>>Sandro >>>> >>>>Vas >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Vas >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sandro
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.