Father wrote:... "6 ply" is just a few for human beings skills. I dont belive in that. A Super G.M. and ex-WCC, as Mister Fischer, Alekine, and Capablanca were - Q.E.P.D.- some times seen 17 complete moves, then it was "34 ply".
In other way, "the will" is as important as the intelligence is. Where there is a will there is a power, and many times, a player than play just for fun does not have any problem loosing her-his chess games again again and again.
Chess machines has the real answer for all these evaluation.
The best chess machine, finally is, the machine that looks jus a few depper than others. Mister Lasker had all the reason: The diference than mark the answere abouy why a person search a better performance than other deppend about his or her ability to seeing just a few more than our oponent. I belive that tactics is the more important secret for search the top of the top, If tactics had not have the key for winning the combat, then chess computers wont be where they are now.
Myths has been changed for Math
Hi Pablo,
Is that not selective search ? In both examples even? If both are identical on the same hardware and there are options to change settings... and you win and I lose... is that not selective ? you are not going faster than i am ? or deeper.
Spacious_Mind wrote:Ok I found it. It was actually an article written by Peter Frey, who worked together with Larry Atkin:
HOW HUMANS PLAY
What does a chess master have that you and I do not have? Many people have been interested in determining the psychological attributes of a chess champion. The strong chess player is often thought of as a formidable calculating machine with incredible memory capacity. Edgar Allen Poe denigrated the game because he thought it involved boring calculations rather than creative thought. Scientist have examined these ideas in a systematic way and have discovered some unexpected answers.
Around the turn of the century, the French psychologist, Alfred Binet, the father of the IQ test, investigated the memory capacity of many of the noted chess players of his time and was surprised to find that their memory span was essentially the same as that of less skilled chess players. Several Russian psychologists examined the IQ scores of their top ranking players in the 1920’s and found that the range of intelligence for this group mirrored the range of intelligence in the general population. Thus, the early systematic investigations indicated that highly skilled chess players are neither especially bright nor gifted with “photographic” memories.
A Dutch psychologist, Adrian deGroot, a skilled player himself, made a detailed study in the 1930’s and 1940’s of the cognitive processes involved in chess play. He traveled around Europe and across the Atlantic with most of the top players of his day. Using a battery of testing procedures, deGroot tried to discover what made the highly skilled player different from average ones. One of his tests involved complicated middle game positions which the chess players studied and then selected the best move. deGroot had his subjects report their thoughts as they worked on these problems. He carefully recorded each verbal protocol and later made a systematic analysis of each player’s thinking process. After several years of data collection, deGroot summarized his findings by presenting average values for several important measures. Top players and average players were very similar in the quantitative aspects of their chess thinking. They considered a similar number of future positions (about 35), had equivalent depths of maximum look-ahead (about 6 and 1/2 plies), looked at an equal number of moves of the first level (about 4), and made the same number of fresh starts (about 3). The top players were not considering hundreds of positions nor were they doing more or deeper analysis than the average player. The only clear difference seemed to be in their choice of what to analyze and their final move selection.
deGroot noted that all of his subjects were silent just after a new position was presented, and no matter how much he urged them to talk, this pause occurred. He surmised that some important nonverbal process was taking place when the player first began his analysis. Later research confirmed this hypothesis. A Russian experiment demonstrated by eye movement analysis that subjects made a global visual inspection of the position when it was first presented. This perceptual processing was apparently the crucial point where the strong and the average players began to diverge. Subsequent research by deGroot indicated that strong players can remember the location of almost all the pieces when they are briefly shown a complicated middle game position while average players remember far less. This advantage disappears if the pieces are randomly placed on the board. The superior memory is therefore chess specific. The most plausible interpretation of this finding is that experienced chess players develop special perceptual skills such that they “see” chess pieces in meaningful patterns. In the memory task, they remember 6 or 7 piece groupings while inexperienced players remember 6 or 7 pieces. Subsequent research in this country has confirmed this interpretation.
The current theory of chess skill is that player develop, through years of practice, a very specific set of perceptual skills in which chess pieces are perceived in meaningful patterns rather than as individual pieces, and they also learn what to do with these patterns to produce winning chess positions. Learning to play chess is like learning to read. For the child, writing consists of many unfamiliar letters mixed in confusing patterns all over the page. For an experienced reader, however, the letters are almost unnoticed. Instead, the page is perceived in terms of words and phrases, with the latter part of each sentence processed only briefly, because the reader had anticipated the general idea in advance from the context of the passage. Research indicates that a very similar process occurs in chess. The experienced player sees a familiar terrain populated by frequently encountered piece groupings. He knows what the patterns connote and what is required for skillful play. Chess skill is a perpetual skill, not a process of computation. Careful move-by-move analysis is used only as a confirmation that the opponent does not have a tactical shot which might refute the intended line of play.
I wonder if this was ever refuted.... this was written in the mid 80's.
Assuming that this might be true.... 6.1/2 plies.... I wonder when if ever an engine will become so advanced to beat a GM regularly at 6 or 7 plies.
I think David Levy made the wrong bet... it should have been that he would never be beaten by a computer that plays 6 plies
Best regards
Nick
I can only say that I believe that it is nonsense.
I see nothing about the playing strength of the players who are described to be "top players" so I doubt if they are really top players and not some strong player(like rating 2300 today or even 2500 that cannot be described as top players).
I believe that humans with average intelligence may be strong players but I do not believe that they can become top players(rating above 2700).
I am also sure that GM's calculate more than 6-7 plies in part of the positions because there are positions that even I calculate more than 6-7 plies including middle game position
Let take even the simple mate pattern that
I knew even at the time that I began to play chess in tournament
and was unrated.
Qc5+ Kh1 Nf2+ Kg1 Nh3+ Kh1 Qg1+ Rxg1 Nf2 mate
The number of plies is 9 plies forward
If a player is careful not to make a mistake because it allows his opponent to win in this way then he calculate 10 plies forward.
I also believe that many chess players do not describe correctly their thoughts in words
They may say that Qc5+ lead to a known mate without giving all the line but it does not mean that they do not calculate it.
Not calculating can cause them to lose by a wrong sacrifice because
the same idea can also fail after
Qc5+ Kh1 Nf2+ Kg1 Nh3+ Kh1 Qg1+ Ne2xg1 Nf2+ Ra2xf2
Uri
Hi Uri,
At first I also thought it cannot be right, but the more I wondered about it, the more I think that it is probably very right indeed, much more right than people stating that they think xx plies ahead. It would be impossible to think many plies ahead. You just cannot analyze every possible move on the board. Time in a game wouldnt even allow you to do that and the stress of doing it would cause errors in judgement. And this maybe where us weaker players fall flat we try to analyze deeply which is likely the wrong approach. What I think happens is a human has the talent to selectively see what he wants to pursue and this he can search deeper perhaps even to xx plies in simpler variations. But only in the line that he is following. He cannot go beyond that. (time restraints) I do think the visualization of the position which is the key. I think most of us can visualize a games position that we have played (perhaps even lying in bed at night after you played someone) and you can replay the position in your head and find moves. But what you are not doing is searching everything deeply, You are selectively choosing what you want to search. I think TOP players are probably much better at this then mere humans... but I don't think they search deeper...they just see things better.
Your other example was exactly as written for when you learn to read and write. You memorized the moves and you know them... once you know them you do not search for them again...you just know them.
Anyway that is my take on this.
Best regards
Nick
The fact that you know does not mean that you do not search because you still need to see that your knowledge is correct(the idea of Nf2+ Nh3+ Qg1+ Nf2 mate does not work in every case that you see the known pattern and you need to calculate the line that you know to be sure that
white has no defence like Rxf2 in the last move).
I agree that players do selective search and I do not claim that they can see everything to depth of 6 plies but the fact that they do a selective search does not mean that strong players do not search more than 6 plies forward in important lines.
Dvoretsky says there are different kinds of positions in terms of calculation. One is the "bush" where you have to calculate multiple alternatives on every move. There is a "tree" where you have forced line and branching on some critical positions, then again a forced line and so on. Then there is the barrel, which is basically a long forced line almost without branching.
I am sure that top-GMs can go to arbitrary lengths when calculating barrel-type variations.
And you can find gazillion examples from like 1800s where people correctly sacrifice a piece because they see a very long (forced) line which leads to victory.
Yes the example was about a selective an tactical item.
Nick... I have a question. I would like to know: How many ply can see a good software in nowdays, like or as example are, Rybka, Crafty, Fritz, Hiarcs, Tiger, Shreder, etc running in brute force into a hardware Core Duo or something like that ?
Regards,
Pablo
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.
Yes the example was about a selective an tactical item.
Nick... I have a question. I would like to know: How many ply can see a good software in nowdays, like or as example are, Rybka, Crafty, Fritz, Hiarcs, Tiger, Shreder, etc running in brute force into a hardware Core Duo or something like that ?
Regards,
Pablo
If I were David Levy I would have said... What does it matter you cannot beat me at 6 ply which is the game of chess that I play
Marek Soszynski wrote:I would like to know where the article was published. Thank you.
Sure
i am sure Nick C will mention where he found the article when he reads your question
if he does not i will PM him and ask him to post the publication source
Steve
Hi Nick,
I have to agree with everyone saying that 6-7 plys isn’t very deep for a human or a computer. Also computers use selective search, why would you want to calculate a line that isn’t going to matter it would be pointless.
About your other question regarding how long it’ll be before programs can play as well as humans at 6 ply deep. I think most GM’s would lose to rybka if they were only allowed to look 6 ply deep. A GM would have to look at some very deep positional advantages to beat rybka at 6 ply. Vas rates rybka 3 around 2400 at 5 ply deep.
In both examples even? If both are identical on the same hardware and there are options to change settings... and you win and I lose... is that not selective ? you are not going faster than i am ? or deeper.