Author: blass uri
Date: 23:02:59 02/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2000 at 21:18:37, Christophe Theron wrote: >On February 21, 2000 at 16:17:22, blass uri wrote: > >>On February 21, 2000 at 14:11:25, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On February 21, 2000 at 08:00:13, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On February 21, 2000 at 07:18:23, leonid wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>I use the word chess program instead of game and I understand that you mean >>>>chess program when you say game. >>>>The word game has nothing to do with programs and computer except the fact that >>>>programs can play a game. >>>> >>>>I agree that chess programs need need evaluation function only because the >>>>hardware is too weak but the fact is that practically the hardware is not going >>>>to be good enough in the next few years >>> >>> >>>You can even say that it will NEVER be good enough. This has been stated since >>>the very beginning of computer chess by Shannon himself. >>> >>>This definitely throws out the idea of "material only" evaluations. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> and it is important to have knowledge >>>>that the search cannot detect if you can do it without doing the program slower. >>>> >>>>I do not say that I am sure that adding the knowledge of KRB vs KRP is >>>>productive because if the program is slower because of this knowledge it can be >>>>weaker but programmers who do not know about this rule even do not think about >>>>adding this knowledge so they are at disadvantage relative to programmers who >>>>have more knowledge about chess. >>> >>> >>>Knowing this does not make you a champion. Any weak club player knows this. >>> >>>I did not say that knowing nothing about the game is an advantage. >>> >>>I said that being very strong in chess is not an advantage when you write a >>>chess program. Being an average player is more than enough. >>> >>>Either you try to distort my initial statement, or you did not understand it. >> >>I understand your initial statement and I only gave the example of KRB vs KRP as >>an example. >>I know that weak club players know this rule but there are other rules that they >>do not know and the point is that knowing more rules can be productive because >>you have more ideas. >> >>I understand your point that generalizations are important but I think that you >>can still use rules when to use the knowledge about special cases. >> >>You can do a slow searcher without using it most of the game but use it only in >>special cases. >> >>I think that it is possible to check at the root position the rules that may be >>important for the near future of the game and tell the program to forget about >>the other rules. >> >>Uri > > >Many programs do that already. > >From my own experience, most rules used by human players do not help a chess >program to play better. > >I don't mean that no rules coming from human experience will help, I mean that >most of them don't help. > >So the job of the programmer is to carefully select which rules to use. In the >process, you can have to discard rules that is considered as very important by >human players. > >Just an example: the concept of "tempo" is absolutely useless for a chess >program. Just my opinion of course. I don't see what to do with this concept, >and I don't think my program is lacking it. > >If someone uses this concept in his chess program, I'm interested to hear about >it. > > > > Christophe I remember that I read that there are people who give a small bonus for the side to move in their evaluation function. You are a null mover so you prune many lines when you waste a tempo because often you do not threat nothing if you waste a tempo. 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.