mclane wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:08 pm
Uri Blass wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:35 pm
mclane wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:53 am
My brain is also doing massive amounts of calculations when I play chess, but my mind only looks onto the board without building huge search trees.
The gag is that humans do play chess with eyes seeing patterns and trajectories, while computers search into the 30-40 search today and do huge combinations out of moves to find out what humans see with their eyes. Also humans automatically see important things due to experience.
The process of learning is thinking with the backbones.
First you need to register everything with conscious, later the unconsciousness is doing the job,
Alpha beta chess engines do not search 30-40 plies in order to find out what humans see with their eyes but in order to find out more than what humans see with their eyes.
Yes but they run around without any plan,
They do enormous amounts of lines of play but have no clue what to do,
That’s the reason the draw rate is increasing and increasing. Also most programs are clones of other programs, they make so many draws.
Where is it good for ??
What is the sense of all this computation if the engines have no clue about chess ?
They do lines that maybe won’t lose material in 30 plies.
But it’s not the target of chess not to lose material.
The target of chess is to mate.
Or do you know any fide rule that says the player with more material wins the game ??
The player who mates wins the game,
Or if the opponent has fallen asleep or dead or time out or resigns or it is technical draw or whatever,
But there is no rule that says you win if your 30 plies search makes you win a pawn.
What the programs make is finding moves.
They are not finding intelligent plans.
They have none.
top humans also have many draws in their game.
I do not see engines make more draws than humans at similiar level.
I think that it is the opposite and ralatively weak engines at the level of 2800 make less draws relative to humans in engine-engine games.
chess engines have some weaknesses that humans do not have but their evaluation is clearly not only material.
When I look at one of the games pablo drew against stockfish I can see that stockfish evaluated obviously drawn position with equal material as almost 3 pawns advantage.
Chess engines clearly have weaknesses and there are positions that they do not understand but I do not think that the problem of top engines is that they are materialistic.
There are trivial positions that they do not understand but there are also positions that they understand better than most humans.
Stockfish solve easily most of the nolot test suite when some of the positions are clearly positional problems and not tactics.
Stockfish solves Nolot number 3 clearly by positional evaluation.
other engines that do less pruning than stockfish cannot see white's advantage at depth 21 after the following line
1.Nxg5 Bxd1 2.Nxe6
Bruce moreland wrote in the past that he does not think that anyone has ever solved this position and I am sure that he gave Ferret a lot of hours.
Stockfish can get more than +2 easily and I do not believe it is because of seeing more tactics.
Next example for the great positional power of stockfish is the following position nolot number 5.
Ferret needed 93 hours to get +5 score
Stockfish can get more than +7 in less than a minute.
How it is possible?
I do not believe stockfish could see in 1 minutes depths that Ferret could not see in 93 hours so again it is a great positional power of stockfish that does not only count material and the high score is also result of positional factors.
Nolot number 6 is also positional problem in the nolot suite and again stockfish can solve it easily(depth 17 on my hardware) when Bruce said
"I don't think that anyone has ever solved this."