Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 16:02:14 04/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 1999 at 18:54:24, Chuck wrote: >On April 30, 1999 at 18:37:49, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >>On April 30, 1999 at 18:31:16, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On April 30, 1999 at 12:03:21, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On April 30, 1999 at 11:37:23, James T. Walker wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hello, >>>>>Food for thought. Which programs are considered by most people as simply fast >>>>>searchers and which are Knowledge based? >>>>>Examples? >>>>>"Fast searchers" >>>>>Fritz >>>>>Junior >>>>>Nimzo >>>>> >>>>>"Knowledge based" >>>>>? >>>>> >>>>>I think many claim to be in between. CM6K,Hiarcs,MchessPro? >>>>> >>>>>I would like some opinions and why. >>>>>Jim Walker >>>> >>>>I think that no program of today should be called knowledge based. >>>> >>>>I looked at the evaluation of hiarcs7 and chessmaster6000 in one game that they >>>>drew. >>>>Chessmaster had KBPP against KR but could not make a progress. >>>>Both programs evaluated the position as a clear advantage for the KBPP. >>>> >>>>It is clear to humans that the position is a draw not because of some static >>>>evaluation function but because the pawns can do no progress. >>>> >>>>A program that cannot understand thess simple things that humans understand is >>>>not deserved to be called a knowledge based program. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Hello Uri, >>>I'm not sure I follow your logic. You seem to be saying based on one position >>>again that a program can not be knowledge based if it does not understand this >>>one position. What about all the other positions that it does understand? >>>Also, you seem to be putting Hiarcs in the "Knowledge based" program category >>>and then saying that it can't be knowledge based because of the one position. >>>Why did you pick Hiarcs to begin with. Some people may say that it is only one >>>of the "Middle of the road" programs that is a mixture of knowledge and search >>>speed. But what about a program that searches only 200 nps but plays 2100 level >>>chess? Is this probably a knowledge based engine? What if it still can't >>>understand the one position you mention? The speed of 200 nps would not qualify >>>it as a "Fast searcher". What if you take this same program and increase it's >>>speed to get 6000nps and now it's playing 2600 chess? What will make it a >>>"Knowledge based" program? Suppose it still cannot solve your specific position >>>then what? >>>Jim Walker >> >> I do not know exactly what is "knowledge based". It seems to me that you >>consider "fast searchers" not knowledge based (please correct me if I am >>misunderstanding your statements, I do not want to put words in your mouth). I >>think a fast searcher can have lots of knowledge (not in the evaluation >>function, of course). Still I do not know if they qualify as "knowledge based". >>José. > >I think Jim is trying to make a distinction - fast searching programs just look >at tactics and thus reach high numbers of nodes/second. For "knowledge-based", I >don't think Jim is using the term in the purist AI sense but to mean that the >program derives its strength as much or more from chess knowledge like attacking >weak squares than from merely searching deep lines of moves and picking the one >that has the best score. I think it is easy to see by watching the programs >play, tactical programs play "weird-looking" sequences of moves, the >knowledge-based ones play more logical sequences. What I mean is that you should >be able to take a group of several moves from a game and see an overall purpose >to those moves. Some won't go with the group, guarding against a tactic or >responding to a capture, but overall, a theme should reveal itself, attack >against the King, a buildup against an isolated pawn, etc. Don't look at one >move and make a judgement, look at sequences of moves. > >Chuck Still, I can easily imagine a fast searcher doing good sequences of moves that pursue a goal (as long as the rewards of this goal are within the computer's horizon). I think it is not easy to tell if the good sequence of moves is due to the deep search or due to some other factor. I think the fast searchers can have knowledge in their search policy, that may allow them to look deeper at the more relevant variations, and reject poor moves after a shallow search. I do not think that a fast searcher that looks at all the variations at the same depth (i.e. does not have knowledge in the search policy) can compete succesfully against strong engines on similar hardware. José.
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.