Author: Tony Thomas Karippa
Date: 13:30:58 01/18/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2006 at 16:15:12, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >The whole position, the who standpoint, the whole opinion of Chrilly is wrong, >but still his message is a highlight for CCC because it's thought-provoking and >most interesting. But still it is totally wrong. Typically nobody called Chrilly >a troll. I would call him similar to Socrates. At least he makes the readers >think. > >Why is all that in his message wrong? > >Because Chrilly has never understood human chess and it seems as if he hasnt >understood CC either. Therefore here the explanations. > >BTW who is Lutz? Yes, he's a fine GM, but he has NOT the overall education of >one Huebner. > >But now to the details. > >The History of Human Chess is bound to the process of concretely playing chess. >It's a centuries-long attempt to understand the optimal chess strategies. It's >also the history of the Beauty of Chess as an Art. So a chessplayer is on one >side satisfied by the sports in chess and on the other side by the art of it. > >An important detail of optimal human chess is the factor time. Nobody sane >enough would refuse to win a Q while taking a little P only to have the future >endgame of hard work with the plus of a single P. A Q win could and would end it >at once. Now what would happen if some chessplayer would begin to play >sub-optimal moves with the satisfaction to win P after P? Such a player would >badly lose almost all his games. Because in human chess we have a second factor, >and this is called "tiredness" after hard work. There are too many possibilities >to make little mistakes and then lose the advantage of a P. There are too many >positions in chess where you cant even win with the plus of a P. So, every >chessplayer is conditioned to play optimal moves to "win" time for avoiding >tiredness. > >Now comes Chrilly with the advantage of 9 moves overall played at optimal >quality and several other moves more speculative, and deeper if some >unneccessary knowledge could be avoided in the programming process. Let me >define that detail. You can make a chess machine stronger - if you once have >reached an error-less base of 9 moves - by just making it look deeper by >throwing classical knowledge from human chess into the bin. > >I'm not a strong GM, but still I claim that this concept is BS. Here the >explanation: > >For a super GM with the incentive of enough money an errorless play of 9 moves >deep is piece of cake. And then he relies on his chess experience and artistry >while the machine is digging into fog, no, in the last region into the dark of >Nowhere (where a machine is completely blind until it can start its table >bases). A human chessplayer with a good training can make a chess machine look >like nuts. Of course for 99,9% of the rest the chess machine plays a too >errorless "chess". Against the FIDE rules, but we leave out this aspect here for >the sake of the argument. > >You know what a chess machine is in terms of mountain climbing? It's a climber >who makes thousands of steps of 10 centimeters. One after the other. No matter >if the sun is shining or the moon. You know what will happen? A huge avalanche >of snow will roll downhill and take the little machine head down into the dark. >Period. > >The avalanche of snow in mountain climbing is the superior knowledge of a >chessmaster who knows thousands of positions who look like draw but still are >won. That knowledge lies far beyond what a chess machine could know nowadays. >Fine that Rybka seems to play after the 10 centimeters paradigm, this gives a >human player extra chances to bully. Of course in mere CC (= engine vs engine >chess) the bigger depth is a plus extra against the nonsense of the mobility >code for the Q. > >Sorry to all, because here I didnt play Socrates but played the spoon-feeder of >the "Nuernberger Trichter", a centuries-old German expression, which became the >role-model for generations of stupid teachers. Next time I'm writing again from >Greece... ;) Most people would agree with me if I say you are the one that's wrong. Tony
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.