Author: blass uri
Date: 13:37:53 10/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 1999 at 15:47:59, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 11, 1999 at 09:29:25, blass uri wrote: > >>On October 10, 1999 at 15:49:09, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>On October 10, 1999 at 15:35:53, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>It is not very active, it likes to play cat and mouse without doing much until >>>>it sees something in the search, but it is very efficient. >>> >>>I do have a different opinion. the games i get are different from yours. >>>tiger plays in all games very active and having initiative. >>>it forces the wins. it makes the game.- >>>do you test a different program ? >>>older tiger versions were passive. not 11.2 and not 12.0. >>> >>> >>> >>>>I start thinking of >>>>it as the opposite of CST in every way. >>> >>>?? >>> >>> >>>>I guess that if someone likes CST or >>>>Mchess won't like Tiger so much, and viceversa. Do you agree? Now that I think >>>>of it, Thorsten likes both, CST and Tiger, so I may be wrong. >>> >>>I like the games. it is not important HOW a program gets a beautiful >>>game, it is important THAT it plays beautiful chess games. >>>i am not interested in games that are dump, produced by dump programs. >>>by boring games between junior-fritz or nimzo-fritz or whatever. >>>i am interested in planful games . hiarcs and mchess and ctiger and rebel >>>and virtual and cstal and and and produce those interesting games. >>>this is what i like. >> >>I believe that all the programs are dumb and have no plan. >>programs also calculate a tree when both sides move and I know no program that >>calculates things like I am going to play Be7 (in order not to let the opponent >>to play Bh6-f8) after it Kh8 after it Bg8, after it Bh7 after it Bg6 and after >>it I control the important diagnol (h7-b1)so I can go forward with the king and >>play Kh7 and win the game because the bishop at h6 i trapped. > > >What you are talking about here is what programs do when they use recursive null >move or related search techniques. > >You begin by "what can I achieve if my opponent does not move?", and then when >you have found something interesting you ask youself: "is it possible to do it >even if my opponent moves and tries to prevent me from doing it?". Null movers >do the same. > >Nothing new. > >After all, maybe programs think a little bit more like humans than you seem to >believe. I agree that null move can help you to find some of these ideas faster but I still see positions (mainly in the endgames) when I have a plan to play some moves one after the other and programs cannot see it becuase the plan is too long for them to see it. programs(also null movers) need to prove by a big tree that there is no defence and humans can see it without a proof of a big tree. Humans do a plan and verify it by selective search and if the plan is long enough(happens often in endgames) then humans may be superior. Uri
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.