Author: Francis Monkman
Date: 16:50:06 05/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 1999 at 19:06:05, Will Singleton wrote: >I think it's extremely difficult for a computer to do GM-type positional >assessment. The human brain seems better setup to do that type of >pattern-matching, selective recall, etc. At Deep-Blue type depths however, >short-term positional understanding becomes less important, since small (or >large) tactical maneuvers can be found, resulting in either material gain or a >simple positional betterment. It's also worth mentioning that chess strategy in the 20th c. has focussed more on the dynamics of chess, hidden potential, even 'resonant' and 'unresonant' positions. Watching parallel searches, one can often deduce more about the dynamics of a position from the relative behaviour of the lines, than from the actual move chosen. Current searches obviously reveal information about the dynamics of the position, but it seems to be wasted. > >At a certain depth, the GM can't compete. We haven't reached that yet, but >theortically it's true. So, yes, I'd say that due to the inherent difficulties >of the linear computer-model, the only way to beat a GM in the future is to go >deeper, bean-counting style. I've just been playing through several games by Mihai Suba (author of the *excellent* "Dynamic Chess Strategy"), and I've just been following a forced line 19-ply deep from start of attack to resignation. And even then viewers were surprised, as a clear advantage wasn't seen for another 8-ply or so. In terms of sheer depth, searches have a long way to go! (I sometimes wonder, in *clearly forced* sequences, why programmers don't just go straight to the 'end of the line', and start the search from there...) BTW There was another excellent example of a forced win in another of Suba's games -- only CSTal II found the line, and immediately! Congratulations, Will, another victory for the 'intelligent approach'. A final quote from Suba: "While dynamism refers to the present state of activity in someone's position, potential shows the possible future activity. I know it's more nebulous than material count, pawn structure or open lines, but we must be aware of it, because the future of chess strategy depends on it, and the chess-race, human-computer, also depends on it." (1991) I guess I'm not really supposed to quote from that under copyright law, if that's the case, maybe the moderators could oblige with an edit? Francis
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.