Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: What is Botvinnik's legacy to computer chess?

Author: leonid

Date: 04:18:23 02/21/00

Go up one level in this thread


On February 21, 2000 at 02:45:11, blass uri wrote:

>On February 20, 2000 at 21:05:47, leonid wrote:
>
>>On February 20, 2000 at 19:25:10, blass uri wrote:
>>
>>>On February 20, 2000 at 14:39:24, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 20, 2000 at 01:39:09, Drazen Marovic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>What is Botvinnik's legacy to computer chess?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That to write a good chess program it's better not to be a strong chess player.
>>>
>>>I do not agree about it.
>>>You cannot teach your program things that you do not know.
>>
>>You don't teach your game to play but you depose exact logic to go after.
>
>I see teaching a program to play the same as deposing exact logic to go after.
>
>You cannot depose exact logic that you do not know about.
>
>One example:
>You cannot teach program that KRB vs KRP is usually a draw and that the
>evaluation should be close to 0.00 if you do not know it and your evaluation by
>only counting material may be +2 and you cannot see the 0 by search because you
>cannot search deep enough.
>
>Uri

Maybe here it is possible to be lost somehow because of the nebulosity of
expression like "go after the logic". If the "go after the logic" represent some
transmission to the game certain human experiece about the game, this experience
is rather secondery. Such human experience could be recognition of certain pawn
structure, that make certain position vulnerable, or certain pieces too weak
when situated in certain board squares. Such a human know-how is not compulsory
for writing the good chess game. Base of the game can be all the time exact
calcualtion of the position based on material exchange. All human know-how is
nothing more but final touches for the game that is already written. And game
need it only because the hardware is too weak to reach the final solution on its
own.

The most clear example about the priority of the logic, over all the human
experiece in chess playing, we can see in the solution of mate containing
positions. There, to know where mate exactly existe, game must use nothing more
but strict logic. All the good guesses about each positions, after human mind,
will only slow down entire game and will put in it some very funny and nasty
bugs.


Leonid.



This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.