Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis (Read 31113 times)
Rebel-Yell
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 34
Location: Finland
Joined: 03/07/09
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #29 - 03/31/10 at 04:07:14
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/26/10 at 03:02:59:
Are you unaware of all this things. Big GMs buy big hardwares to analyse. Ivanchuk has two 32 cores in his chess school. Peter svidler has recently bought a 32 way (nehalem EP) , Anand has a 64 way and has the biggest Database collection to date apart from the free style winner  Nelson Hernadez. Whatever a human does he cant be strong tactically. The only chance that a human can prevail is in endgame and that too ore than 6 pieces on board.

How do you know this?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #28 - 03/30/10 at 22:29:19
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/30/10 at 19:13:22:
Quote:
That analysis technique is hardly special.

Because you don't know how to use it.


The enlighten us. Or better still, subscribe at ICCF, then you can show the whole world how good your analysis techniques are.
O wait, you already wrote that you play corr chess. At what level exactly?

kylemeister wrote on 03/29/10 at 16:51:59:
*Incidentally, I can't find a FIDE, Dutch or ICCF rating for him.


It looks like De Zeeuw hasn't played anymore since 1995. In the 80's he managed to beat a few Dutchies with ELO 2300+, Marcel Piket (the brother of) being the strongest.
In 1983 he was Dutch champion bughouse.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #27 - 03/30/10 at 19:28:45
Post Tools
Master Om, I don't want to frustrate you any more than I already have, but isn't your post to BPaulsen about 13.Nxd5 about the theory of 5...Nxd5?  If so, you should put it back on that thread in 1.e4 e5. 

This thread is for discussing the pluses and minuses of computerized analysis.  Forgive me if you post was meant to be relevant to the latter.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #26 - 03/30/10 at 19:28:04
Post Tools
Vladimir wrote on 03/29/10 at 21:33:23:
kylemeister wrote on 03/29/10 at 21:02:18:
This fellow who allegedly was routinely beating masters has had a rating in the 1900s for his last 8 regular tournaments, played in 2009 and 2007.  He has come down just a bit from his peak of 1963.


Certainly higher than 1200, but that seems more like it. I wouldn't be too surprised if someone expert-strength or so beat masters and an IM in offhand or blitz games.

Edit: His rating graph, at least, seems to demonstrate his constant inactivity. After two tournaments, I wouldn't be too surprised if he were still somewhat underrated.

Sorry to steer off-topic again, so I want to say that yes, computers have their flaws. They're only designed to spit out a numeric evaluation, and many evaluation terms are simply impossible to effectively code into an engine without harming its overall strength. For example, many concepts, such as fortresses, are easy for humans to understand using plain language, but it's difficult to program a whole concept into an engine. You can only really catch certain cases, not the whole spectrum.

Engines only spit out a number, yes, but that also means that they are not influenced by rigid dogma. They evaluate the [b]position and nothing else. And.. they are extremely strong at it. Don't dismiss their opinions without a second glance as a "silly computer move." If you disagree with an engine, you should prove it. Search out the truth of the position, not what it looks like at first inspection. You'll be better for it, and so will your analysis.[/b]

Nicely said.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #25 - 03/30/10 at 19:20:22
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 03/29/10 at 13:19:03:
TN wrote on 03/29/10 at 11:43:20:
I'm not convinced. In the 2005 Freestyle Chess Tournament, two amateurs (one rated in the 1300s and one in the 1200s), playing under the handle 'ZackS', defeated teams of Grandmasters equipped with analysis engines to win first prize, defeating a team of 2600 GMs and 3000 strength engines in the final. Unfortunately I can't find the article explaining how ZackS won the tournament in their own words, but basically they used a superior analysis process with their engines than the other teams. And thus, two amateurs with a superior analysis process proved stronger than Grandmaster + engine centaur teams with an inferior analysis process.

I looked at the analysis of one of ZackS's games from the final, and the analysis was of a decent quality.


I was unaware of that - that's interesting. However, I highly doubt that's the norm for amateurs to accomplish. The vast majority of amateur analysis needs careful checking.

Quote:
13.Nd5 is the move Black is begging White to play - why play a move that solves all of Black's positional problems and simultaneously loses a tempo for no good reason?


Right, my thoughts exactly.

You Are Unaware of lots of things not onlythis when Computer analysis is concerned.

Again then what is the move Apart from 13.Nd5  at that position ?. Whay dont you suggest one ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #24 - 03/30/10 at 19:13:22
Post Tools

Quote:
It still doesn't help if the human component is weak.

I'm not saying you're weak, but my point stands.

Wrong. TN answered about ZackS . So you think of yourself.


Quote:
Engines beating other engines is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything I said. The most powerful engine doesn't trump a strong player's insight combined with an engine.

Correct but player didn't need to be strong if he has good hardware + Good Engine + Good analysis method .Example is ZackS and the current freestyle winner Team
Cato The younger
Anson Williams, 27, was the team leader. A veteran centaur player, he is a Telecommuncations Engineer / Software developer, and skilled with computer hardware. He is an unrated OTB chess player. As “Intagrand” he has placed 3rd in the 4th Freestyle tournament, his team consisting of the same cast of characters. Among his interests are bowling and J.S. Bach, which he plays about as well as he Freestyles. A graduate of Imperial College with a Masters degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Anson now lives in London.Winner of 9th freestyle chess.
Yingheng Chen, 24, a graduate of The London School of Economics (LSE). She assisted Anson with analysis during all nine games of the finals. Her interests also include bowling, badminton, cycling and reading. Through much exposure to computer chess (solely because of Anson as his GF) she has picked up some useful analysis skills and was a great asset during the tournament.
Nelson Hernandez, 50,(My Friend ) lives in the United States and did not participate in the games as an active player. However he has collaborated for years in developing the team’s book, and with Anson is a tournament co-strategist. A former paratrooper and stockbroker, he is now a financial analyst. He is also an unrated player, and says he hasn’t played a competitive game of chess OTB in over 20 years. The team name of “Cato” comes from his admiration of the principled Roman Senator who vainly opposed Caesar and finally fell on his sword.

Anson and Yingheng had several computers running during the tournament of varying power. His top-end machine was a quad core Intel QX6700. Beyond that, he considers the specifications of his machines and the functions they performed “classified”.

At different points in the tournament different chess engines were consulted, though not all at the same time. The specific engines that were used are likewise “classified” but any well-informed person could make an educated guess and not be far off the mark.

The team has absolutely no comment other than to say that their book was not a decisive element in any game of the qualifiers or finals, though it surely saved the team from countless traps they might have fallen into against such formidable opponents. It generally served its purpose: to reach the middle-game with an even or slightly better position on the board, giving Anson a chance to work his centaur skills.”



Quote:
That analysis technique is hardly special.

Because you don't know how to use it.

Quote:
Aside from that, if the strategy element weren't equally important then why would GM Kaufman need to make Rybka play better positionally?  Grin

How you think A chess program is written ?

Quote:
A chronic weakness is a static weakness.

My diagnosis fits the position and not taking seriously moves a computer spits out that are blatantly ridiculous (13. Nxd5), which you don't even seem to want to defend.

I am not the Only one. Go and Argue who put the Main line aanlysis of the 5...Nd5! Mr Maarten de Zeeuw. Write to NIC.
Genna Sosonko is not a chess fool. And the gist is You were wrong in anlaysisng the position properly.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Rebel-Yell
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 34
Location: Finland
Joined: 03/07/09
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #23 - 03/30/10 at 01:05:30
Post Tools
To me 13.Nd5 makes sense. Strong knight so let's get rid of it. 13...ed5 opens the c8-h3 line and cd5 the c-line.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vladimir
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 60
Joined: 05/22/09
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #22 - 03/29/10 at 23:11:43
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 03/29/10 at 22:53:35:
Vladimir wrote on 03/29/10 at 21:33:23:
Edit: His rating graph, at least, seems to demonstrate his constant inactivity. After two tournaments, I wouldn't be too surprised if he were still somewhat underrated.


Eh?  For example, his rating has been between 1945 and 1963 for his last half-dozen tournaments, which were played from May to September of last year.


Ah, my mistake. I thought it was only the World Opens in 2007 and 2009.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4901
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #21 - 03/29/10 at 22:53:35
Post Tools
Vladimir wrote on 03/29/10 at 21:33:23:
Edit: His rating graph, at least, seems to demonstrate his constant inactivity. After two tournaments, I wouldn't be too surprised if he were still somewhat underrated.


Eh?  For example, his rating has been between 1945 and 1963 for his last half-dozen tournaments, which were played from May to September of last year.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vladimir
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 60
Joined: 05/22/09
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #20 - 03/29/10 at 21:33:23
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 03/29/10 at 21:02:18:
This fellow who allegedly was routinely beating masters has had a rating in the 1900s for his last 8 regular tournaments, played in 2009 and 2007.  He has come down just a bit from his peak of 1963.


Certainly higher than 1200, but that seems more like it. I wouldn't be too surprised if someone expert-strength or so beat masters and an IM in offhand or blitz games.

Edit: His rating graph, at least, seems to demonstrate his constant inactivity. After two tournaments, I wouldn't be too surprised if he were still somewhat underrated.

Sorry to steer off-topic again, so I want to say that yes, computers have their flaws. They're only designed to spit out a numeric evaluation, and many evaluation terms are simply impossible to effectively code into an engine without harming its overall strength. For example, many concepts, such as fortresses, are easy for humans to understand using plain language, but it's difficult to program a whole concept into an engine. You can only really catch certain cases, not the whole spectrum.

Engines only spit out a number, yes, but that also means that they are not influenced by rigid dogma. They evaluate the position and nothing else. And.. they are extremely strong at it. Don't dismiss their opinions without a second glance as a "silly computer move." If you disagree with an engine, you should prove it. Search out the truth of the position, not what it looks like at first inspection. You'll be better for it, and so will your analysis.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4901
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #19 - 03/29/10 at 21:02:18
Post Tools
This fellow who allegedly was routinely beating masters has had a rating in the 1900s for his last 8 regular tournaments, played in 2009 and 2007.  He has come down just a bit from his peak of 1963.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vladimir
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 60
Joined: 05/22/09
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #18 - 03/29/10 at 20:43:48
Post Tools
TN wrote on 03/29/10 at 11:43:20:
Quote:
If the human interacting isn't a good chess player the analysis itself and the evalutions cannot be trusted, regardless of how good their software is.


I'm not convinced. In the 2005 Freestyle Chess Tournament, two amateurs (one rated in the 1300s and one in the 1200s), playing under the handle 'ZackS', defeated teams of Grandmasters equipped with analysis engines to win first prize, defeating a team of 2600 GMs and 3000 strength engines in the final. Unfortunately I can't find the article explaining how ZackS won the tournament in their own words, but basically they used a superior analysis process with their engines than the other teams. And thus, two amateurs with a superior analysis process proved stronger than Grandmaster + engine centaur teams with an inferior analysis process.

I looked at the analysis of one of ZackS's games from the final, and the analysis was of a decent quality.


I have a completely anecdotal story that may or may not reveal any truth about that freestyle tournament.

That year, I was an assistant at a local chess camp of 30 kids in NC, USA.  The other boy assisting lived in NC with his parents during the summer, but attended a boarding school in New Hampshire (where the two winners are from).  This boy told me that he had recently taken up chess, and as part of his school's chess club, is coached by Steven Cramton (one of the ZackS members).  I found this all rather remarkably coincidental, because the camp took place a week after this freestyle tournament that I had eagerly followed on the ChessBase website.   Being under Cramton's tutelage, he shed a few more details about them than I had read.  He said that they were both vastly underrated.  The other member, Zackary, he told me, was around 1800-1900 USCF despite his outdated 1398 rating.  Still an amateur, nevertheless. However, Cramton, he said, was likely of FIDE master or international master strength.  Naturally, I thought that this student may be embellishing just a little.  Noticing my skepticism, he told me of how Cramton had demolished a local New Hampshire IM in an offhand game and routinely defeats the masters at their NH chess club.  He added that Cramton hadn't played in a tournament in "forever" to explain for his low rating.

The two, in their ChessBase interview, said that their specialty is opening preparation and analysis.  This was corroborated by my fellow assistant, whose tournament repertoire was formed by Cramton.  Further discourse confirmed that his repertoire was absolutely laden with TNs cooked up by Cramton. He went on to say something to the effect of how their deep Sicilian analysis practically refuted a major variation. Well, take his penchant to embellish cum grano salis.

So, for whatever it's worth, there's my story.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schaakhamster
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 650
Joined: 05/13/08
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #17 - 03/29/10 at 20:28:52
Post Tools
bloody brilliant thread!   Cheesy

I'm laughing my ass off here... what is the point actually? Play the ruy? Or d3 against the two knights? Or get a powerfull computer? No thanks!

Perhaps that computingpower could be spend on something usefull, like research? It is a college for f sake.

My suggestion: use the night for sleeping, that will defenitly improve your chess
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4901
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #16 - 03/29/10 at 16:51:59
Post Tools
I see that that odd-looking capture on d5 was given five years ago by that de Zeeuw fellow*, who gave both 9...Nf7 and 9...Ng6 as equalizing.  A couple of books with GM authors which have thought 9...Nf7 (without mentioning 9...Ng6) to be clearly better for White are Fine's "Practical Chess Openings" and Trifunovic and Poljakov's "Kodeks šahovskih otvaranja."

*Incidentally, I can't find a FIDE, Dutch or ICCF rating for him.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #15 - 03/29/10 at 16:04:39
Post Tools
Here's the position under discussion (13.Nc3-d5 has just been played.)


* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo