Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!mclure@sri-prism From: mclure%sri-prism@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: number-cruncher vs. humans: 9th move Message-ID: <12802@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Aug-84 17:47:43 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12802 Posted: Thu Aug 23 17:47:43 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Aug-84 07:31:14 EDT Lines: 81 [...] The Machine Moves ----------------- Depth Move Time for search Nodes Machine's Estimate 8 ply cxd4 18 hours, 7 minutes 6.5x10^7 += The Game So Far --------------- 1. e4 c5 6. Re1 a6 2. Nf3 d6 7. Bf1 e5 3. Bb5+ Nc6 8. d4 cxd4 4. o-o Bd7 9. cxd4 5. c3 Nf6 Commentary ---------- [...] Tli@Usc-Eclb, USCF ? Unfortunately, the voting will also keep out the inspired moves. So we get an average game of all playing.... SLOAN@WASHINGTON 8. ... b5 It is worth noting a classical problem here in building a chess program: 1) The machine was following its book until this move, 2) As White, the machine should enjoy AT LEAST EQUALITY in the first position following "book" recommendations, 3) However, having switched from "book" evaluation to its own opening/middle game evaluation, the machine now decides that it doesn't much like this position after all! There are several possibilities: 0) Black is superior in the starting position (unlikely!) 1) the book (at least this line) is inferior, and the machine should discard it (anyone out there think that the Prestige will do this?) 2) the book is (objectively) correct, but this line does not match the playing "style" of the machine (i.e., the position is OK, but the machine doesn't know the correct thematic continuations, and hence will indeed find the position to be difficult.) This last possibility is most likely, and is not limited to machine play. Many human players have the same problem when they memorize columns and columns of analysis without understanding the REASONS for the evaluations at the ends of the columns. This leads to post-mortem conversations of the form "That master isn't so strong; I had him CRUSHED in the opening...but he SOMEHOW escaped to a dead drawn ending - he didn't even know that it was theoretically drawn - he refused my draw offer! - I was so mad at him for that that I lost my concentration for 1 move and hung a piece." EWG@Cmu-Cs-Ps1, USCF ? The comment that the group of humans won't have a long term strategy is, I think, naieve. It is just as easy for us to analyze lines of play (e.g. kingside vs queenside attack, try to trade off and queen a pawn, etc.) as it is for us to analyze the single position. If anything it's somewhat easier, since we think about that anyway. Why not solicit votes on that level as well and at least report the judgement (if not allowing it to directly choose the move at hand, which would be rash). A suggestion for later in the game, at least. This harkens back to memories of 10 or so years ago when I was still reading the chess books, and ran across a comment by one of the grandmasters (Sam Reshevski, I think?) who liked to play blitz and always used the style of spending a significant time thinking about lines of play at the start of the middle game. His strategy was to have the lines firmly in mind for later play. The comment was that his opponents often got bored waiting for him to reply at that time and wasted the real time; he could then play at blitz pace much better as the game progressed and the opponent struggled for the right line(s) of play. It also had the surface appearance of him putting himself deliberately in time trouble, which wasn't the case. Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: sri-unix!mclure.