Author: Jesus de la Villa
Date: 10:28:35 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 12:20:01, jonathon smith wrote: >On February 07, 2000 at 11:54:37, blass uri wrote: > >>On February 07, 2000 at 09:01:40, jonathon smith wrote: >> >>>On February 07, 2000 at 08:56:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On February 07, 2000 at 02:35:58, Bertil Eklund wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 07, 2000 at 02:13:19, Will Singleton wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Quite unusual, I guess Crafty was all worn out from its ICC tourney win. This >>>>>>is a typical kside attack, I'm surprised Crafty allowed it. My first win >>>>>>against Crafty. >>>>> >>>>>Hi! >>>>> >>>>>Yes, king-security is probably one of Craftys weaker sides. I have seen Crafty >>>>>17.01 castle queen-side, right into an enemy attack in cases where a human or >>>>>another computer don´t even consider the possibility. >>>>> >>>>>Bertil >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>If it does, something is broken. Crafty has a _lot_ of code to analyze the >>>>king safety on _both_ sides of the board >>> >>> >>>ChrisW told me that Crafty has not much code and what it does have demonstrates >>>a total lack of understanding of king safety. >>> >>>ChrisW told me there are two types of chess programmers. Programmers. And chess >>>players. ChrisW told me that despite manifest protestations to the contrary, >>>"programmers" really have no idea. Which is why they bean-count. Like Crafty >>>does. >>> >>>I believe ChrisW. >> >>I know that programmers talk with chess players. >>I know that Amir ban talked with grandmasters. >>Do Chris think that the grandmasters have no idea to explain him the problems in >>the evaluation function of Junior? > >ChrisW says he have no idea about Mr Ban. He never tried to work him out. If he >is a "typical chess programmer" (which is defined further on), then he and a GM >will find it difficult to communicate because they are on very different levels, >and few GM's have put their thoughts into words. Fewer still into words that are >machine-programmable. > >Better is if the programmer himself is a strong player. The ideas can flow as >pictures in the head, no need for word translation. > >> >>I am sure that Amir knows about many problems in the evaluation function of >>Junior(I told him about some problems that he did not fix). >>I guess that the reason that he did not fix them is not that he has no idea but >>because it is not easy to explain the computer everything that you know. > >ChrisW told me that since he didn't fix the under-promotion bug for some time >(did he ever?), then it was always going to be unlikely that deeper issues were >ever going to be resolved. > >> >>It is also possible that he found that giving Junior more knowledge is going to >>do it weaker in games because the speed of the search is also important. >>I do not believe that you can learn from the fact that programs have no idea >>that the programmers have no idea. >> > >ChrisW told me you can learn from mnay small things. No self-respecting chess >player could possibly allow his own silicon creation to play with such holes in >it, if he knew what the holes were. > > >> >>I know that Robert hyatt also talked with grandmasters and that he is not a weak >>player relative to most of the programmers. > >ChrisW says Dr Hyatt is a very weak player relative to chess players. > >>What is the minimal rating that a programmer need by chris's opinion to be a >>chess player? > >ChrisW told me that the crucial boundary to pass is that of thinking that chess >is tactics. > >ChrisW says that some people refer to the stage beyond this boundary as "playing >positional". There are more boundaries beyond this one, but the typical chess >programmer didn't even reach this first stage. The typical chess programmer >found chess difficult, realised he wasn't going to progress as much as he liked, >and turned to chess programming instead. The typical chess programmer sees >himself as a silicon-human combination that plays chess. Hence the confusion you >will often see when the programer talks of "we". "We" can mean the program, or >the program-programmer combination. Serious confusion arises in the mind of the >typical programmer when he begins to say "we" when he means "I". > >After "playing positional" is mastered (and it is *not* mastered by knowing some >positional concepts - only by actually doing/thinking it), the next step is >psychological - the idea of working out what your opponent is thinking. > >Translated into chess programming "what your opponent is thinking" reduces to >"what the programmer is thinking" and "what certain types of programmer think". >This comes under attack from programmers who never got to this stage. Hence you >will find occasional posts from Mr Moreland to ChrisW telling him to "quit >psychoanalysing me". Mr Moreland never understood what was going on and reached >the wrong conclusions. > >>Is chris a chess player by his definition? > >Yes. > ChrisW told me, you forgot to say... ChrisW told me, Yes. >> >>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.