Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 01:47:32 02/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2006 at 18:32:31, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 15, 2006 at 17:06:26, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>Imagine you show a position to two chess players. >> >>The first, a low-rated player, takes twenty minutes to enumerate all sorts of >>bugus and irrelevant nonsense about what might happen or what both sides should >>do. >> >>The second, an experienced, high-rated player, looks for half a minute and >>simply says: "white should mobilize his pawn majority here". >> >>Who gave the more knowledgeable assessment? >> >>Vas > >:) > >At first you spoke of more knowledge which I see different to more >knowledgeable, because this is a personal quality while the first is more >a quantitative question. So to your actual question a GM sure is more >knowledgeable but a IM could well have much more knowledge, but which is either >not relevant in the concrete position or has a lower priority or takes him too >much time or where his calculations are too slow or his experience from >practical play is worse. >Insofar your first differentiation wasnt good enough. Let's say that you add to your program an evaluation heuristic than doubled b-pawns are worth a queen. According to your definition, you have added chess knowledge. I think it's better to say that you have made the program more complex, but reduced its knowledge. The term "knowledge" should not apply to things which are wrong and unproductive. Vas - However, Vas, let's >stick through the fog: you know better than me that the verdict "pawn majority" >and NOT this or that in a concrete situation is no doubt a question of >calculation and then for a GM a question of experience too, I mean experience >from practical play. I dont see yet how you want to adopt that detail with >sufficient perfection into chess machines with the actually available depth. >What I mean is that perhaps you are successful as long as you can better focus >on such a question in advance and hence be better prepared while your opponents >are unaware, as the results seem to indicate. In your favor I hope you have some >other aspects in your Rybka than "just" this pawn advancing thing. But then I >didnt want to be indiscrete. I take for sure that you go for Torino. All the >best and thanks so far. > >Rolf
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.