Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:41:08 10/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 1999 at 13:56:54, blass uri wrote: >On October 14, 1999 at 10:10:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 14, 1999 at 03:56:14, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >> >>>>> Thus the micro chess programmers have to think much harder to produce >>>>> the highest quality evaluation functions, while DB programmers can stuff >>>>> almost anything that comes to mind, >>>> >>>>Exactly. They can stuff 'anything that comes to mind' in their evaluation, >>>>because it'll still be the same speed. So why would they use a simple >>>>evaluation, when they can use a function of arbitrary complexity at the same >>>>speed? >>> >>>More stuff in the evaluation won't necessarily improve choice. Lots of such >>>advice, like the folk wisdom, comes in pairs of opposite polarity (is it better >>>to be the "early bird" or make waste from haste etc). A well thought out and >>>finely tuned (to the context) function should do better than a mass of stuff not >>>as well tuned. A creative spark needed for this kind of black magic, as it were, >>>prefers those who are under greater contradictory constraints. >>> >>>> >>>>You have: >>>> >>>>A) A chess program, written by one of the best chess programmers there is, >>>>running on an ordinary desktop computer (Perhaps even a 700 MHZ Athlon). >>>> >>>>or B) A chess program, written by more than one of the best chess programmers >>>>there are, running on a supercomputer with hundreds of special-purpose >>>>chess-chips to evaluate in hardware what would take 100x longer on a >>>>general-purpose CPU. Also note that use of several GMs was employed to help >>>>tune and improve the evaluation. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Otherwise same person, but in a harder situation will be more creative, so >>>they'll get more performance per unit of crunching power, no question about it. >>>As to the GM advice, well, it may be useful to the programmers in matters that >>>are of algorihmic nature (mostly the endgame techniques) or in tuning the >>>opening books (provided they have a good sense what fits the program otherwise). >> >>That is simply _totally_ wrong. Using micros, we decide what we want to eval, >>we try it, and decide whether the gain from the knowledge is worth the cost in >>search speed/depth. Hsu does the same, except rather than having to choose >>whether to use it or not due to speed, he decides whether to use it or not based >>on whether he wants to design the hardware to handle that. >> >>_EXACTLY_ the same issue, just in a slightly different context. If you really >>believe that others are more creative than the DB team, you are _sadly_ >>mistaken. >> >> >>>The other advice, of more strategic kind, it's not clear whether that kind of >>>knowledge will help or harm the program. Some principle which may loom important >>>to a GM (and maybe it is within his algorithm, much of which is subconscious, >>>though) may be expensive to compute and within program's algorithm it may be of >>>very little or no use, or even it may cause harm (e.g. ideas on indirect control >>>of center or of an isolated central pawn, which GM may like to have). >>> >>>It's like with "expert systems," it sounds better than it works. >>> >> >>In this case, it seems to have worked incredibly well, wouldn't you say? >>No other machine around can beat Kasparov in a match. No other machine can >>even beat a strong human given the position reached in game 6. Yet DB made >>it look easy. > >I believe that kasparov is the one who made it look easy by playing some bad >moves in a line that he was not prepared to play. > >Uri Again, I have seen no program other than DB that can take that game after the 'bad moves' and win it. There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest (now) that this opening was specifically chosen by Kasparov as a computer-buster. I gave that as a possible explanation while the game was in progress, explaining that (a) perhaps he didn't think it would take on e6 since commercial programs that he used for training wouldn't (their books apparently have this capture marked as bad); (b) perhaps he hoped they would take it as he won every game as black against the commercial programs during training. In any case, DB made it look easy, but it wasn't. Until someone can produce a program that can win that from the white side, DB's play remains a small miracle IMHO..
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.