Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: knowledge and knowledgeable

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
>>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?
>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.


 - 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.

This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.