Author: JNoomen
Date: 00:19:31 11/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2005 at 21:42:37, Stephen A. Boak wrote: Stephen, Excellent posting, thanks! Jeroen >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.