Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

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 0.02 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.