Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 23:20:40 05/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 1999 at 19:50:06, Francis Monkman wrote: > >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. I'm not sure I completely understand what this is saying. Can you try to clarify a bit for me? Thanks. :) >>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 think this will eventually work. As you said: "At a certain depth, the GM can't compete." However, I think there are alternative ways of reaching this goal. Perhaps they just haven't been found yet. >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'. Could you post these positions? I'd like to take a look at them, if possible. :) >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) This is quite interesting...Before I ever start writing a chess program (Someday! :), I'll have to take a look at this book... >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.