ChessPub Forum - Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis

nimzo5 Junior Member Offline d4! Posts: 92 Location: USA Joined: 09/06/09 Gender:	Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis Reply #59 - 04/09/10 at 19:02:03	Post Tools	Print Post
	On the subject of the freestyle team- I have played Cramton on icc - his handle is luminarydebris.

	1950 Fide - 2050 if you omit Sunday Morning first rounds
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10756 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Computer assistance at the highest level Reply #58 - 04/01/10 at 20:48:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	Master Om wrote on 04/01/10 at 03:59:52: I am not a bad player Either But you did not care to answer questions on what level you play.

	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
	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 #57 - 04/01/10 at 15:02:18	Post Tools	Print Post
	I found the chessbase article. Manuel Rodriguez of the Dominican Republic changed his puzzle from one he said he found "somewhere on the internet". His puzzle was flawed but almost identical. Now, I just need to find the original. Here's the link to the chessbase article. http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/christmas2009/chr09-sol1.htm


	IP Logged

BPaulsen God Member Offline I Love Light Squares! Posts: 1702 Location: Anaheim, CA, USA Joined: 11/02/08 Gender:	Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis Reply #56 - 04/01/10 at 14:27:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Smyslov_Fan wrote on 04/01/10 at 13:52:44: Regarding the example cited, chessbase had a week of anti-computer puzzles, and this looks strikingly familiar. I'm more concerned that no credit was given to the originator of the chess puzzle if it wasn't Master Om. I saw the same article, and I had the same impression.

	2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE. FIDE based on just 27 games.
	YIM AIM IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis Reply #55 - 04/01/10 at 14:03:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	Smyslov_Fan wrote on 04/01/10 at 13:52:44: Markovich wrote on 04/01/10 at 13:12:43: Master OM, try not quoting every last bit of the big posts to which you reply. It wastes bandwidth. Markovich, we don't really need to worry about bandwidth here. But, it's bad form to have lengthy quotes anyway. Do you really want everyone to re-read what was written before they read your pithy response? Most chess players are fully capable of reading the original post. As a moderator, I generally don't go in for editing based on conventions and grammar. Regarding the example cited, chessbase had a week of anti-computer puzzles, and this looks strikingly familiar. I'm more concerned that no credit was given to the originator of the chess puzzle if it wasn't Master Om. Although this was not mine it is not Chessbases either One of my friends does this to find which engine is best for which position as here shredder only understands this and there are lot many.


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis Reply #54 - 04/01/10 at 13:53:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sorry. I didn't think of it. i will take care hence forth.


	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 #53 - 04/01/10 at 13:52:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 04/01/10 at 13:12:43: Master OM, try not quoting every last bit of the big posts to which you reply. It wastes bandwidth. Markovich, we don't really need to worry about bandwidth here. But, it's bad form to have lengthy quotes anyway. Do you really want everyone to re-read what was written before they read your pithy response? Most chess players are fully capable of reading the original post. As a moderator, I generally don't go in for editing based on conventions and grammar. Regarding the example cited, chessbase had a week of anti-computer puzzles, and this looks strikingly familiar. I'm more concerned that no credit was given to the originator of the chess puzzle if it wasn't Master Om.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis Reply #52 - 04/01/10 at 13:12:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	Master OM, try not quoting every last bit of the big posts to which you reply. It wastes bandwidth.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Master Om

Full Member

Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10

Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #51 - 04/01/10 at 12:55:43

Post Tools

Print Post

Vladimir wrote on 04/01/10 at 05:18:38:

Master Om wrote on 04/01/10 at 04:15:43:

So please any one Analyze this and tell me who can find the answer.
8/1p6/1Pp2N1q/p1Ppk2p/P3p3/3PPpPp/3K1P1P/1R6 w - - 0

It doesn't seem so difficult: 1.Ng4+ hxg4 2.d4+ Kf5 3.Rh1 Qh8 4.Ke1 Qa8 5.Kf1 Qa6+ 6.Kg1 and the king just shuffles between f1 and g1.

Engines won't find 1.Ng4+, but they will find the defense afterward. Most of them will grossly misevaluate the position, but that's not really a problem if they find the right moves. The score never goes up despite how deeply it looks, meaning that its search cannot find any way to progress. That also means that everything is working correctly, but the engines just do not have any way to properly evaluate the concept of "progress." It gives the otherwise proper evaluation weights to the queen, a few mobility penalties for the rook in the corner, and that's about it.

Very few engines have implemented explicit blocked-pawn code, namely Crafty and maybe Shredder, if I'm not mistaken. They prefer to handle blocked pawns practically by cooking their opening books to avoid them, and giving early evaluation penalties to closing the position. If such situations are never allowed to arise, then they will not have to bother trying to solve their engines' short-sightedness. This anti-human concept may not be so helpful in analysis, but it's the easiest way to deal with it.

Also, it's been a known problem for a long, long time and doesn't really prove anything. The situation can be summed up as... the engine programmers know about it but just don't care. Exploit it if you can, but there's no reason to sacrifice overall strength in every other position with cumbersomely slow evaluation terms just to handle such extreme cases.

Thus as you guessed Shredder is the only engine which can find the answer w/o any help.

IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis Reply #50 - 04/01/10 at 12:51:55	Post Tools	Print Post
	I appreciate MNb's vote of confidence, but I don't claim to be a "very strong" cc player. Just now, my ICCF rating is 2287. OTB I haven't played in quite a few years, and I don't have a FIDE rating. USCF 2240. Not that any of this is at all relevant in this thread, I just didn't wan't to seem to bask in MNb's too generous praise.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2338 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: Computer assistance at the highest level Reply #49 - 04/01/10 at 07:22:53	Post Tools	Print Post
	Master Om wrote on 04/01/10 at 03:59:52: MNb wrote on 04/01/10 at 02:39:38: Master Om wrote on 03/31/10 at 04:45:45: This is to wake Markovich up . I posted it to just show how Important is Computer's suggestion in chess and even in highest level Players like Garry Kasparov need advice from them. For your information: Markovich is an experienced and very strong correspondence player. Since years he uses engines to help him. If I ever will meet him - I am only an experienced, but not so strong corr player - he will wipe the board with me, no matter how strong the engines are that I may use. Markovich also works with large computers in his work. And a greenhorn like you wants to wake him up? Never undermine the opponent. I am not a bad player Either . In case of Ideas Learning is a continuous process . FIDE rating?


	IP Logged

Vladimir

Junior Member

Offline

Posts: 60
Joined: 05/22/09

Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #48 - 04/01/10 at 05:18:38

Post Tools

Print Post

Master Om wrote on 04/01/10 at 04:15:43:

So please any one Analyze this and tell me who can find the answer.
8/1p6/1Pp2N1q/p1Ppk2p/P3p3/3PPpPp/3K1P1P/1R6 w - - 0

It doesn't seem so difficult: 1.Ng4+ hxg4 2.d4+ Kf5 3.Rh1 Qh8 4.Ke1 Qa8 5.Kf1 Qa6+ 6.Kg1 and the king just shuffles between f1 and g1.

Engines won't find 1.Ng4+, but they will find the defense afterward. Most of them will grossly misevaluate the position, but that's not really a problem if they find the right moves. The score never goes up despite how deeply it looks, meaning that its search cannot find any way to progress. That also means that everything is working correctly, but the engines just do not have any way to properly evaluate the concept of "progress." It gives the otherwise proper evaluation weights to the queen, a few mobility penalties for the rook in the corner, and that's about it.

Very few engines have implemented explicit blocked-pawn code, namely Crafty and maybe Shredder, if I'm not mistaken. They prefer to handle blocked pawns practically by cooking their opening books to avoid them, and giving early evaluation penalties to closing the position. If such situations are never allowed to arise, then they will not have to bother trying to solve their engines' short-sightedness. This anti-human concept may not be so helpful in analysis, but it's the easiest way to deal with it.

Also, it's been a known problem for a long, long time and doesn't really prove anything. The situation can be summed up as... the engine programmers know about it but just don't care. Exploit it if you can, but there's no reason to sacrifice overall strength in every other position with cumbersomely slow evaluation terms just to handle such extreme cases.

IP Logged

BPaulsen God Member Offline I Love Light Squares! Posts: 1702 Location: Anaheim, CA, USA Joined: 11/02/08 Gender:	Re: Computer assistance at the highest level Reply #47 - 04/01/10 at 04:49:47	Post Tools	Print Post
	Master Om wrote on 04/01/10 at 03:59:52: Never undermine the opponent. Irony is beautiful.

	2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE. FIDE based on just 27 games.
	YIM AIM IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis Reply #46 - 04/01/10 at 04:15:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	So please any one Analyze this and tell me who can find the answer. 8/1p6/1Pp2N1q/p1Ppk2p/P3p3/3PPpPp/3K1P1P/1R6 w - - 0


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Computer assistance at the highest level Reply #45 - 04/01/10 at 03:59:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 04/01/10 at 02:39:38: Master Om wrote on 03/31/10 at 04:45:45: This is to wake Markovich up . I posted it to just show how Important is Computer's suggestion in chess and even in highest level Players like Garry Kasparov need advice from them. For your information: Markovich is an experienced and very strong correspondence player. Since years he uses engines to help him. If I ever will meet him - I am only an experienced, but not so strong corr player - he will wipe the board with me, no matter how strong the engines are that I may use. Markovich also works with large computers in his work. And a greenhorn like you wants to wake him up? Never undermine the opponent. I am not a bad player Either . In case of Ideas Learning is a continuous process .


	IP Logged