I am discovering that many interesting moves are simply rejected by chess engines because they search for the move that yeilds the most favorable score.
In one of my correspondence games, I immediately noticed a pawn sacrifice idea and spent a number of hours looking at it. My opponent could have played it and given me fits. Fortunately, he did not.
This is just one example of a chess engine ignoring many interesting ideas.
Note that it is normally not necessary to play the "best" (according to the chess engine) move to get an interesting game.
Opinions, anybody? Am I on the mark on this one?
So it discards unpromising moves, the trouble is how do you know they are unpromising unless you've checked them fully but then
your into the horizon effect and combinatoral explosion of the game tree and left with a program that doesn't see as deep.
The problem has excacerbated since engines became more "positional" and seeing deeper at the cost of missing some tactics and ideas.
The real reason is minimax choosing the best evaluated position even though subjectively it might not always be the best. But the evaluation
function says it is. GM's tend to disagree a lot of the time with computery moves based on a strategic standpoint.
You can add further knowledge to the eval to counteract it for different scenarios, but I still don't think it makes sense for a position to be represented by a single number
with the engines of today. Chess isn't only calculation or only 0's and 1's.
Maybe this is the way to go, who knows...
In any case, Computers for correspondance shouldn't be solely relied upon, because their positional understanding is most of the time over the search horizon.
And as a result can fall down into holes in static positions they don't or can't play well when there is nothing to calculate.
It needs a paradigm shift in computer chess to change that...
See : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNMkF66VCow
> In any case, Computers for correspondance shouldn't be solely relied upon, because their positional understanding is most of the time over the search horizon.
> And as a result can fall down into holes in static positions they don't or can't play well when there is nothing to calculate.
I suppose this problem can be reduced to some extent by going to positions downstream in a line and then working backwards.
There may be a lot of room for improvement in how the computer uses hash tables. For example, when doing as in the above sentence, what is going on in the hash table(s)? Maybe things could be done better.
atm Houdini is winning this with a narrower search than Rybka and a very fast exe which Rybka cannot match.
If Houdini was so perfect it would never lose a game against any engine,however this is simply untrue.
Dont get me wrong H3 is a superb product which i will be buying in next week or so.
My advice, if you want interesting then just play OTB chess against human opposition and study the game afterwards using your silicon friends. Your games will have much more variety and as they are entirely 'your games', your study time with your silicon friends will be more focused on discovering 'opportunities to improve'; you get the added bonus of meeting lots of people too!
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Using an engine does not require that the chess be "engine guided."
As I noted in an earlier thread, chess using engines as carpenters use hammers and saws is a valid variant of chess which can be enjoyed.
Restriction of use of chess engines to post-mortem analysis only is an unnecessary restriction.
On the other hand, playing chess at any time limits but without the use of engines &/or databases remains a popular form of chess.
Chess variants are not bad just because they are not the "original" form of chess.
However, "using engines as carpenters use hammers and saws"...is indeed precisely a 'variant' - NOT real correspondence chess, a 'variant' of it. It is no more a 'competition' than someone with hypothetical Gun A against someone with hypothetical Gun B at a hunting meet when these hypothetical guns are the ones doing the vast majority of the work and are there to 'correct you' when you point it in the wrong direction. THAT is going to happen far more often than someone pointing the gun properly at a target. Similarly, someone piloting an engine is in the vast majority of cases actually being piloted by that engine when you consider the actual number of positions looked at during a game. It's doing the overwhelming amount of work.
These things make people with just ordinary chess skill look like Kasparovs. It's an illusion IMHO. But everyone is entitled to their illusions I guess.
The "original" chess, according to the chess history books, did not allow capturing enpassant, castling and pawn promotion. Pieces could only move one square at a time.
Then, as I recall, in the late 1400s in France, some outrageously radical weirdoes started playing a variant of the "real" chess. The variant allowed capturing enpassant, castling and pawn promotion and the pieces were allowed to move more than one square at a time.
I am sure there were those who objected that the new variant was "no good" because it was not "real" chess!
What happened? The new variant became very popular whereas the original version fell into disuse.
Today we think of this radical new variant as being the "real" chess.
The same applies to correspondence chess too. Older chess players could view modern server based correspondence chess as being an abomination.
I guess I could be regarded as an "older correspondence chess player" but I find the servers to be extremely convenient. I really don't want to mess with those post cards.
We did not always have chess software. Those who resist change resist this new development and long for the "good old days" when there were no computers at all.
Modern hunters do use guns and I see nothing wrong with that.
Bob...the difference is none of these 'variants' made use of 'generated moves'. When any person vs person competition is replaced by person with the biggest, baddest computer and engine vs someone attempting to do the same, it's a variant of the game of chess. Computer aided chess died when Kasparov gave it up. "Advanced Chess", I think it was called. He used it to get himself some $$$$ and publicity...and rightly let it die. It's a thing of the past to all but computer geeks (hey, I'm one myself in a sense) who for their own individual reasons like to undertake it. To the rest of the world, it is dead and holds no interested but to those I just mentioned. RIP.
"The same applies to correspondence chess too. Older chess players could view modern server based correspondence chess as being an abomination."
No, 'server based correspondence chess'...is just that. Servers are nothing but places for storing information...in this case, the games in progress. That is all they do. I do agree with you though that those old post card days are gladly gone. Long live servers.
> it's a variant of the game of chess.
That is true.
But if that particular variant becomes popular, then it should be considered a "legitimate" game. A game, after all, is just a way to make people happy. What is wrong with that?
I exclude ugly games which are of an anti-social nature such as a competition between two shooters who try to see which one can shoot the most people.
> died when Kasparov gave it up. "Advanced Chess", I think it was called.
Kasparov gave up more than "Advanced Chess." He gave up your favorite version of chess too, but OTB chess has not died. What Kasparov did or quit doing is interesting but he did not kill anything IMHO. I think Kasparov "screwed up."
I see the use of chess software in correspondence chess as far more relevant than its use in a variant of OTB chess.
Not only did Kaspy give up Advanced Chess (it was just marketing tool and quick $$), everyone has...organizers and promoters. Like I said, it is dead.
It only lives in the world of those I mentioned...with no intrest on the outside. Rather like the game I play with my cat...
I would not agree if you were talking about correspondence chess since it appears that correspondence chess using chess software is becoming very popular worldwide.
If the day ever comes that chess playing computers become 3 or more orders of magnitude (base 10) faster, then Advanced Chess may come back.
We should talk more about correspondence chess where the time is available for the chess engine to reach good search depths.
Incidentally, I would love to have a much faster chess computer, but primarily for post mortem analyses and for analyses of GM games.
Agreed that women probably had no place in the wars you mentioned other than to be spoils of war. In any case, the "queen" moved only one square at a time. Perhaps in that original version the piece we call a queen actually represented something other than a woman? What is a wazir?
Incidentally, I wonder whether or not anybody still plays that game.
Maybe the originator of that game had a wife or concubine or lover who talked him into including a woman?
We are assuming that the game was made up by a man. Could it be, instead, that it was a woman who gave birth to that game?
> What is a wazir?
An advisor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizier
In Xiangqi (Chinese Chess) there are two advisors and there is no queen.
We indians still play it in villages as shatranj. As the story goes it was first devised by a brahmin named sisa on the order of king in order to replace 'pasa' which is a gambling play with dice, but with similar addiction. He came up with a war game on a chaturanga means 8x8 board them used to make maps. Legend says king was so happy that he asked sisa a prize. He said he said he needs a grain for every square and doubled every day for 64 days. Amazingly king found no rice in his godown!! In eight days.
When persian came india they took algebra and shatranj and modified it. Now queen was wazir, pawn was pheela, bishops were oont or camel, knights were ghoda or horses and rook as rookh or elephant. When britishers came they knew about arithematic and shatranj and changed it to chess modifying it and adding dumb queen. We indians give importance to women only inside house and not outside it.
> Imagine a hunter who refused to use a gun because he felt that "real" hunters only used spears or bows and arrows!
No, no, spears and bows and arrows are tools equivalent to chess engines, real men hunt beasts with their bare hands!
Fortunately for people that enjoy correspondence chess, they don't understand the benefits of complications, so there's still a valuable role for humans to play.
One person, a correspondence chess GM, said that doing so would result in too many draws.
Either way, if you wish to win you must not allow yourself to become a slave of your chess engine. Not even if it is Houdini 3.
While it's true that engines do not play perfectly, it's also true they play in the +3300 ELO range, or 500 pts above GM. They may miss some tactics but more than make up for it in overall play.
Houdart, take note!
can using only basic alpha-beta and nullmove to save examining useless moves, so that ALL moves are checked without missing anything important that having selectivity would
negatively affect ?!?
A lot of engine gaffs seem related to a poorly developed sense of danger. A human looks at a position, and thinks 'there's a pawn storm coming on the kingside,' whereas Houdini will quite happily hunt for tactical shots until it gets mated. King safety evaluation needs to be improved.
Another area where humans can have an impact is in keeping the engine focused on lines that seem promising. Pretty well all engines prune some lines that ultimately turn out to be best, so even in tactics, they make mistakes. As a chess player though, you can feed your engine the first few moves of a critical line until it finally sees what you're getting at, and its evaluation changes to favour that line. If the engine is bad at backward propagation though, when you move back up the line, it may end up losing the critical moves, and going back to its old first choice, so you have to keep an eye on it, and store the critical analysis in some form.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill