Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:15:52 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 16:35:15, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 15:43:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Top programs of today _still_ seem to be unable to understand >>simple chess concepts like the pawn majority we have been discussing in another >>thread. I discovered, by bits and pieces, some of the knowledge in deep >>thought, and it was not "small" at all. Everyone assumes that the micros are >>much smarter... and that us old supercomputer guys simply depended on raw speed >>to win games. If you look at the game Cray Blitz vs Joe Sentef, from 1981, >>you will find a position that many programs today will blow, and that programs >>of 5 years ago would totally blow (bishop + wrong rook pawn ending knowledge). >>We weren't "fast and dumb" at all. Neither was DT, DB or DB2. Fast, yes. But >>definitely not "dumb". The "intelligence" of todays programs is mostly myth >>brought on by fast hardware that searches deep enough to cover for some of the >>positional weakness the programs have. >> >> > >From the above statement it seems that no significative advancements were made >in computer chess since then... are you sure that is a realistic conclusion ? > >with best regards. Since DT's time? I would say that is realistic. There have been small qualitative improvements in the micro programs, to be sure. But things that I was doing in 1992 are _still_ not done in many programs. The pawn majority discussion is just one example. I've said this _many_ times in the past... I don't believe there have been more than a small number of "revolutionary" ideas in computer chess in the last 35 years. Hashing was certainly one. Perhaps null-move another although it is not clear that you must use null-move to be competitive as Rebel shows (and the DT/DB/DB2 machines as well). Iterative deepening with full-width search is another. Extensions are collectively another one, some more-so than others. Perhaps EGTBs is the most recent one. Everything else has been slow, methodical progress, something many won't like to hear. Part of the progress has been due to incremental changes to chess engines/evaluations/etc, part has been due to the hardware speed advances. Probably more of the latter than the former, if the truth is known...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.