Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 03:43:30 09/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2004 at 06:41:32, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >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. > Ok hopefully with diagram: [D] rnbq1rk1/3nbpp1/1p5p/p1Ppp3/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.