Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:30:54 10/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2005 at 01:10:41, chandler yergin wrote: >Anthropomorphism >I can understand this in the religious context. >To do it with Computers is bizarre. > >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. >Anthropomorphism, also referred to as personification or prosopopoeia, is the >attribution of human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, objects >or natural phenomena such as animals, forces of nature, or believing in an >unseen author of things, amongst many other possibilities. "Anthropomorphism" >comes from two Greek words, a????p??, anthropos, meaning human, and µ??f?, >morphe, meaning shape or form. >In religion and myths >In religion, anthropomorphism refers to the attribution >of a human body, or >of human qualities generally, > >"Deep Blue is Dumber than the Stupidist Human" >This is what the IBM Scientists pasted on their Web Site just after >the Deep Blue/Kasparov Match! (They knew) >All any Computer Program does is "evaluate" >It has no intelligence, no thought, no plan, no strategy, only >feedback from it's Mini/Max & Alpha Beta Algorithms. >Therein lies its strength and also its weakness. > >Bruce, our own CTF Programmer explained it very well in a Post >some time ago. >"To min-max chess using alpha-beta would require a horrific tree search." > > >" In 40 moves (80 plies), which is clearly a horrific >under-estimate, the game tree size is on the order of 10^62." > >"Even at a billion billion nodes per second, you could search for a billion >billion seconds, and you'd only be a billion billionth of the way to being a >billionth of the way done." >This is what Computers do.. Brute Force basically. >They ‘evaluate' every possible move in a position and rank every one, >best first, on the feedback they get from the above noted algorithms. >Since Opening Books are used.. The true playing strength of the Engine >has taken a back seat so to speak. Opening Books are based on games >‘played'! Does this mean it is the latest theory or the best moves? >Of course not! You can prove this for yourself. Load an Opening Book, >doesn't matter which one, Open it, now add a ‘kibitzer' Engine. >Go through the Opening Book while looking at the PV from the kibitzer, >you will often find the ‘best' move is not even in the top 6 choices. >The Opening books that come with the Programs are outdated. >A high depth search will be based on very few games.. Old ones at that. >Example: What made Fritz 6 stronger than Fritz 5.32? Or Fritz 7 >stronger than Fritz 6, or Fritz 8 stronger than Fritz 7 etc.. Etc..? >The Opening Book of course. Not correct. In tests from predefined positions without opening book Fritz8 is better. What did the Opening Book consist of? >Games published in Chessbase Magazine. With each new release thousands >of new games had been added to the Database & the Opening Book. >Just open the Database and click on Sources. Interesting? >Now, all the Top Programs when out of book use basically the same Algorithms. > >http://articles.roshd.ir/articles_folder/mohandesiScience/computer/Howstuffworks%20How%20Chess%20Computers%20Work.htm >"What you will find is that computers don't really "play" chess like people do. >A computer playing chess is not "thinking". Instead it is calculating through a >set of formulas that cause the computer to make good moves. As computers have >gotten faster and faster, the quality of these calculated moves has gotten >better and better. Computers chess calculators are now the best chess players on >the planet, even though they do it totally blindly!" The fact that they calculate is correct but thie formula to evaluate positions is getting better and is clearly better than a lot of humans. > >Bruce has a wonderful Website which explains in great detail all of the >Algorithms and short cuts Programmers have made to Prune the chess tree & >insignificant PV's. >Sorry to say I lost the Link, perhaps he would be kind enough to Post it again? >Having said "A" I must now say "B" >There has not been any significant change in the Programming Algorithms for >30 years? Therefore what can we attribute the fantastic result of some "new" >Programs defeating Programs like Shredder? There was a clear improvement in the search algorithms of chess programs and new programs are better than old programs also because they have better pruning. >He who searches deeper & faster when out of book will find the better moves! >Simple as that! A few better moves in the middle game results in forced wins in >the end game. Faster..deeper.. That is the Key to Fruits Success! Lack of EGTB's >is not a handicap, in fact it speeds up the Search. We are going to see and I expect Fruit with EGTB to have better rating than Fruit without them. lack of EGTB speed up the search only if tablebases are probed too much but there is no rule that you have to use EGTB in every node. >Also, it is not encumbered by massive Hash Tables! >Prove it you say? >No Problem! >Give your Engine the highest Hash Tables optimum for your System. >Check your kN/s! >Reduce your Hash tables to 1 MG and check your kN/s! >Now.. If you want to truly check Fruit vs Shredder, get a level playing field! nodes per second is not important. if you give Fruit more hash then it may be slower in nodes per second but I expect it to be faster in getting the correct move and better in games. Uri
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.