Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:20:26 05/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 1999 at 02:20:40, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >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... If you are a chess player, consider reading it immediately. :-) Just a couple of months ago, a GM told me that it is the most important book written on chess in over 50 years. Dave
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.