Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 18:42:37 11/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2005 at 06:12:50, JNoomen wrote: I. QUESTION #1 - WHAT IS THE TRUTH IN A POSITION [1, 1/2, or 0] >As far as I am concerned: I tend to distrust the computer evaluations, regarding a specific position. I strongly agree. >I think that a computer eval says more about whether the program likes the resulting position or not. I strongly agree--it does not mean the computer 'understands' the position. >But not exactly the clean and pure eval of the position itself. >For me, the only truth is the position on the board. The search for a truthful evaluation [correct result: 1, 1/2, 0] of a particular position is what fascinates human chess players who want to understand & learn. It is an open-ended question if the complexity of a position does not allow a clear [provable & understandable] path to the truth. Complex positions are attractive to human players who believe/hope they can manage the complexity [and enjoy doing so] better than their opponent, or who need to unbalance a position when a win or draw is necessary. [..] II. QUESTION #2 - WHAT PATH OF PLAY IN A POSITION MAXIMIZES OUR PRACTICAL CHANCES TO ACHIEVE OUR GOAL(S) >How to evaluate this position >----------------------------------------- >Another position I am very interested to share thoughts with you. Suppose you >have a slightly better ending and there is a deep line that gives the >opportunity to exchange into a R+B vs. R ending. Of course your program has >tablebases, so it will calculate a score of 0,00 for that position and refuse >to play it. Since it has a slightly better position and that is better than a >0,00 score. But will that choice maximise the winning chances of the program in >question? >My simple answer is: it depends on the opponent. Now your comments diverge from your above statement that, "the only truth is the position on the board." No problem, but we must remain clear on where this discussion is going. At this juncture, the inquiry now concerns the other major, open-ended question (which we would love to correctly resolve): "What practical move choices will maximize our chances to [Win or Draw]." We are no longer concerned solely with the truth of the position (although that determination hangs over our head as we analyze our new concern). A. We are now concerned with finding the best way to outplay our opponent, and thus obtain *more* than the theoretical truth in the position. If the position is, in truth, a loss, we now wish to seek a Draw or Win. If the postion is, in truth, a Draw, we wish to seek a Win. B. Alternatively, we are now concerned with finding the best way to *hold* the theoretical result of the position [Win or Draw], without stumbling and making an error that scores less than the theoretical value of the position. In analyzing QUESTION #2 during a game, we no longer look only at the truth of the position on the board. III. PRAXIS DISCUSSION: PRACTICAL CHOICES - BALANCING THE CHANCES A. We must now look at the understanding/playing strengths and weaknesses of: 1) our opponent; and 2) ourself. B. The available thinking time left on the clocks of: 1) our opponent; and 2) ourself. C. We must also look now at the types of move paths we could choose, and resulting positions we could encounter: 1) Complicated or Simple 2) Balanced or Unbalanced 3) Strength of Attack and Possibilities for Counter-Attack 4) Possibilities for Tricks & Traps or to overlook a Trick or Trap 5) etc. D. We then must weave together our knowledge knowledge & judgement regarding the assessment of the abilities of our opponent and ourself, the time remaining on our clocks, and the types of move paths and resulting positions we could steer for (things are not always guaranteed!!) or in fact force on the board. Thus we make a move selection that *maximizes* our practical chances, under the circumstances. It is also *this* aspect of playing chess (MAXIMIZING OUR CHANCES) that is attractive to chess players. Theoretical results do not alone control our moves. Practical chances is of utmost importance when we wish to improve our statistical playing chances to: 1) at least obtain our theoretical result; or 2) when we wish to or have to exceed the theoretical result of the position (because we *must* have the Win or the Draw). Now the art of chess is at work. Psychology comes into play (knowing our opponent's likes & dislikes, abilities to handle or mishandle certain types of positions, as well as our own propensities and abilities). Much of the delight in a chess game comes from finding those tiny beginning sparks of chances that our opponent overlooks, and in fanning the flames of those chances until they consume our opponent and we can force our desired Draw or Win, as needed. The judgement to do this successfully is not fully explainable. It balances things that are not easily measurable by science, by hard statistics in a chess games database. This judgement is not easy to program into chess software--it is why the machines have not yet completely overwhelmed human analysis & play. Yet it is a fascinating subject worthy of much discussion. The study of PRACTICAL CHANCES will benefit the over-the-board human player, as well as(ultimately) the chess programmer. Best regards, --Steve
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.