Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis (Read 19270 times)
nimzo5
Junior Member
**
Offline


d4!

Posts: 92
Location: USA
Joined: 09/06/09
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #59 - 04/09/10 at 19:02:03
Post Tools
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 Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #58 - 04/01/10 at 20:48:06
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 04/01/10 at 03:59:52:
I am not a bad player Either Wink


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
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 #57 - 04/01/10 at 15:02:18
Post Tools
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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #56 - 04/01/10 at 14:27:49
Post Tools
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.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
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
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.
  
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 #54 - 04/01/10 at 13:53:36
Post Tools
Sorry. I didn't think of it. i will take care hence forth.
  
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 #53 - 04/01/10 at 13:52:44
Post Tools
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.
  
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 #52 - 04/01/10 at 13:12:43
Post Tools
Master OM, try not quoting every last bit of the big posts to which you reply.  It wastes bandwidth.
  

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 #51 - 04/01/10 at 12:55:43
Post Tools
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.
  
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 #50 - 04/01/10 at 12:51:55
Post Tools
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!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2147
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #49 - 04/01/10 at 07:22:53
Post Tools
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.


Grin

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?

Grin

Never undermine the opponent. I am not a bad player Either Wink.
In case of Ideas Learning is a continuous process Roll Eyes.


FIDE rating?
  
Back to top
 
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
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #47 - 04/01/10 at 04:49:47
Post Tools
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.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
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
So please any one Analyze this and tell me who can find the answer.
8/1p6/1Pp2N1q/p1Ppk2p/P3p3/3PPpPp/3K1P1P/1R6 w - - 0
  
Back to top
 
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
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.


Grin

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?

Grin

Never undermine the opponent. I am not a bad player Either Wink.
In case of Ideas Learning is a continuous process Roll Eyes.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #44 - 04/01/10 at 02:39:38
Post Tools
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.


Grin

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?

Grin
  

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
 
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 #43 - 03/31/10 at 14:13:16
Post Tools
Edited:
Moderator's Note:

Even though this is now in the General Chess section, which has slightly more lax rules than theory sections, I still expect the posters to be cordial with each other.

~SF March 31, 2010
  
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 #42 - 03/31/10 at 14:03:54
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 03/31/10 at 12:54:17:
Yeah, I was going to suggest 13.Ne4 myself, which an the obvious choice if you reject the exchange on d5.  But if we're talking chess, it really belongs back on the original thread.

It's ironic that I moved all this stuff about computers to this part of the board, and here people decide to talk chess.


The topic, as I received it, is about how computers analyse chess positions. We're currently talking about a single position but others could arise. 

As Markovich probably noticed, this is the "General Chess" section.  It isn't the chit chat section.  I have no problem at all with chess analysis in the general chess section.  I don't really think the analysis of the position has as much to do with the theory of the variation as how computers and humans analyse chess positions.

As an aside, it's much easier to discuss positions if the position is clearly labelled with a diagram! Cool
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #41 - 03/31/10 at 09:40:24
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 03/31/10 at 06:20:47:
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.


There's a marked difference between appreciating the role of computers and overstating their role.

And i have never overstated it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #40 - 03/31/10 at 09:39:09
Post Tools
may be
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
snits
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 103
Location: Phoenix
Joined: 12/29/06
Gender: Male
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #39 - 03/31/10 at 06:31:52
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/31/10 at 04:45:45:
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 03/31/10 at 00:34:40:
Serious question (please don't read any negative thoughts into this):

Why does this belong in a separate thread from the other one currently discussing computer assistance?

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.


He seems to be well aware of the fact. You just seem to be missing the point he is making.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #38 - 03/31/10 at 06:20:47
Post Tools
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.


There's a marked difference between appreciating the role of computers and overstating their role.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #37 - 03/31/10 at 04:45:45
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 03/31/10 at 00:34:40:
Serious question (please don't read any negative thoughts into this):

Why does this belong in a separate thread from the other one currently discussing computer assistance?

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.
  
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: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #36 - 03/31/10 at 00:34:40
Post Tools
Serious question (please don't read any negative thoughts into this):

Why does this belong in a separate thread from the other one currently discussing computer assistance?

Edited:
Moderator's Note:  After reading the comments about why this belongs in another section, I decided to merge the two topics.

~SF March 31, 2010
« Last Edit: 03/31/10 at 14:07:07 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #35 - 03/30/10 at 22:12:38
Post Tools
That Van de Herik guy is well known as a computer guru in The Netherlands. In the 80's he wrote a thesis on computers and chess, which I have read.
In general only his obvious predictions become true.

I don't know what you exactly intend with this outdated article. I just refer to Kramnik-Leko, WCh-8, 2004, 8th game for the way a computer played a decisive role at the very, very highest level of chess.
  

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
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Computer assistance at the highest level
Reply #34 - 03/30/10 at 19:38:40
Post Tools
By Frederic Friedel

This paper appeared as a contribution to the book "Advances in Computer Games 9", edited by Professors H. J. van den Herik, University Maastricht, and B. Monien, University of Paderborn. It was published by the Universiteit Maastricht in 2001. The paper  was written and submitted by the author in 2000.

Potentially computers can play a decisive role at the very highest levels of chess. This was made very clear to me during the Super GM tournament in Las Palmas in 1997. In round four of this tournament Garry Kasparov played a very nice attacking game against the world’s number two Vishy Anand. I was following the moves with Fritz in the press room, together with some of the grandmasters present there. Here’s how the game went:

Kasparov,Garry (2785) - Anand,Viswanathan (2735) [B92]
Las Palmas Las Palmas (4), 12.12.1996
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Kh1 b5 10.a4 Bb7 11.Nd5 bxa4 12.Rxa4 Bc6 13.Ra3 Nxe4 14.Na5 Nf6 15.Nxc6 Nxc6 16.Bc4 Nd4 17.Rh3 g6 18.Qd2 Nf5 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6
r2q1rk1/5p1p/p2p1bp1/4pn2/2B5/7R/1PPQ1PPP/2B2R1K w - - 0 20
[b]At this point Kasparov went into a deep think. Jan Timman started to speculate whether White couldn’t play the very forceful 20.g4. Kasparov’s second Juri Dokhoian immediately confirmed: “That’s what he’s looking at!” Yuri understands Kasparov’s thinking better than anyone else in the world.

We started analysing the position with Fritz, and soon we had the following lines: 20.g4! Qc8 (20...d5 21.gxf5 dxc4 22.Qh6 Qd5+ 23.f3 Rfd8) 21.Bd5 Nh4 22.Rg1! g5 (22...Rb8 23.Qh6±; 22...Bg7 23.Rxh4) 23.Rxh4 gxh4 24.g5 Bg7 25.g6 Kh8 (25...Qf5 26.gxf7+ Kh8 27.Bxa8 Rxa8 28.Qd5 wins) 26.gxf7 Qf5 27.Bxa8 (27.Rxg7 Kxg7 28.Qh6+ Kh8 29.Bg5 Rxf7 30.Bxa8=) 27...Rxa8 28.Qd5 Rf8 29.Bh6! This final point, found by Fritz, is especially important and clinches the line. Our full analysis was published in CBM 57.

Meanwhile White had played 20.Bd5. The game lasted six hours, Anand defended very tenaciously and at around 10 p.m., much to the disappointment of Kasparov, a draw was agreed. When he left the stage Garry spotted me and walked straight over. “I couldn't win it, could I, Fred?” he asked, with a troubled look on his face. It was a bit shocking: the world champion and best player of all times consulting a chess amateur, asking for an evaluation of the game he has just spent six hours on!

Naturally Garry wasn't asking me, he was asking Fritz. He knew I would have been following the game with the computer. “Yes, you had a win, Garry. With 20.g4!” My answer vexed him deeply. “But I saw that! It didn't work. How does it work? Show me.” He and Anand listened in horror while Juri dictated the critical lines. All of this was captured on video and published in ChessBase Magazine 56 (Feb 1997).[/b]
The next day Garry did an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel. He spoke about “Advanced Chess”, a new concept he has developed, which involves playing games in real time with computer assistance. He used the game against Anand from the previous day to illustrate his point. This is what he had to say: “That game provides us with new arguments for Advanced Chess. If I had had a computer yesterday, I would give you the full line with 20.g4 within five minutes. Maybe less. I would enter g4 and check all the lines. I know where to go. It would give me the confidence to play moves like this. Can you imagine the quality of the games, the brilliancy one could achieve?”

In the time since those remarks there have been two Advanced Chess matches in León, Spain. In the first Kasparov was unable to defeat Bulgarian GM Veselin Topalov, who made efficient use of Fritz to defend against the world champion. The match ended in a 3:3 draw, although Kasparov had just demolished Topalov 5:1 in a match without computers. In the following year Vishy Anand played against Anatoly Karpov. Both players were assisted during the game by ChessBase 7.0 and the chess engine Hiarcs 7.32. Karpov was quite inexperienced at operating a computer, while Anand happens to be one of the most competent ChessBase users on the planet. The result was that we were witness to an (unplanned) experiment of man and computer vs man. Karpov didn’t have a chance and was trounced 5:1 by his opponent. I am convinced that a player like Anand, using a computer to check crucial lines during the game, is playing at a practical level of over 3000 Elo points.
  
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 #33 - 03/31/10 at 12:54:17
Post Tools
Yeah, I was going to suggest 13.Ne4 myself, which an the obvious choice if you reject the exchange on d5.  But if we're talking chess, it really belongs back on the original thread.

It's ironic that I moved all this stuff about computers to this part of the board, and here people decide to talk chess.
  

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 #32 - 03/31/10 at 09:46:12
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 03/31/10 at 06:26:02:
Edit: Originally I had a lot of pointless banter in this post, so I deleted it.

Suffice to say Om severely overestimates his own analytical prowess as witnessed by asking for help on a correspondence game, and severely underestimates what others know about using engines for analysis.

From here on it'll be about the chess, because as witnessed by Om's thread aimed at Markovich attempts to reason with him are pointless.

Master Om wrote on 03/30/10 at 19:13:22:
Again then what is the move Apart from 13.Nd5  at that position ?. Whay dont you suggest one ?


13. Ne4, for starters. Please, do explain how black has full equality by force from here. I'm all ears, and I'll be the first admit if I'm wrong.

Aha i was confused at that position. Yes i consider many dont know how to use engines and that stands and i can show proof of it. Ok Let me Analyze
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #31 - 03/31/10 at 06:26:02
Post Tools
Edit: Originally I had a lot of pointless banter in this post, so I deleted it.

Suffice to say Om severely overestimates his own analytical prowess as witnessed by asking for help on a correspondence game, and severely underestimates what others know about using engines for analysis.

From here on it'll be about the chess, because as witnessed by Om's thread aimed at Markovich attempts to reason with him are pointless.

Master Om wrote on 03/30/10 at 19:13:22:
Again then what is the move Apart from 13.Nd5  at that position ?. Whay dont you suggest one ?


13. Ne4, for starters. Please, do explain how black has full equality by force from here. I'm all ears, and I'll be the first admit if I'm wrong.
« Last Edit: 03/31/10 at 07:26:23 by BPaulsen »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #30 - 03/31/10 at 04:40:53
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 03/30/10 at 19:28:45:
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.


I dont get Frustated on small things. Buecker confirmed in many lines my analysis/de Zeeuw's is correct and I am happy. Only a analyst will understand this. You r moderator and you have a work to do so its ok but I only request always look at the two sides of the coin not one.
yes it was for that post but i saw the diagram here so.....
If i post there you will gain delete it.
  
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 #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: 10475
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: 4618
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: 4618
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: 4618
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
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #14 - 03/29/10 at 13:19:03
Post Tools
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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #13 - 03/29/10 at 11:43:20
Post Tools
Sorry to go off-topic, but there were some interesting points made on computer analysis that I would like to comment on.

Quote:
A human being able to beat an engine's tactics in practical play is irrelevant, because a human + computer can beat a computer (as seen before in correspondence play), this renders their purposes in analysis inferior to a human in conjunction with the computer, especially when evaluating theoretical positions in the opening.

And engines still don't understand positional play on par with humans, including Rybka. This is why a strong chess player is still needed to guide it.


Not only can, but a team of average human + average engine will beat even the strongest engines in the vast majority of games, as shown in the ChessBase Freestyle tournaments where if I recall correctly, even Rybka and Fritz (without any human interference during the game) did not manage to qualify. I agree and have stated before that computer evaluations cannot be trusted above a human's evaluation, unless one side is winning. Even then, the computer may suggest continuations that are not the easiest and most practical way of winning the game.

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.

Quote:
Chronic structural weaknesses can be eventually exploited, which still doesn't explain the atrocious 13. Nxd5 which is as shortsighted as it gets.


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?
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #12 - 03/29/10 at 06:35:33
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/29/10 at 02:15:17:
Thats why I use Human + Engine Analysis.


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

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

Quote:
Engines not understanding positional Ideas is Rubbish. It seems you are unaware of all those. Chess programming has gone to new level. My Pocket Fritz 4.2 beats Fritz 5.32 on quad Q6600 3.0 GHz. . This you can confirm from GM Larry Kaufman who put positional Ideas in Rybka. That is why Rybka File size is Bigger than any engine.


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.

Quote:
Yes I have a diffrent set of analysis technique and one of them Montecarlo Analysis running on depth 16 , 8cores. where HUman interaction is not necessary and you get all the moves with probability of the moves no move remains untouched there and upto the end game . Tactics is always important than Strategy b'coz strategy is needed for Tactics.


That analysis technique is hardly special.

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

Quote:
It is not what it seems. Thats not Chronic . Your Diagonisis is probably static not Dyanmic.


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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #11 - 03/29/10 at 02:26:49
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 03/29/10 at 00:15:31:
Is there a specific engine which is supposed to be good in these Two Knights lines?  I note that Fritz tends to agree with most of the PGN's assessments in the 6.d4 lines, but regards some of the play as sub-optimal (e.g. Kaissiber 29's suggested improvement 12.Nc3! over the old 12.Na3 is given by Fritz as best after about five seconds' thought, assessing it as +=). 

But in contrast, Fritz goes further than my "roughly equal" assessment of the lines I gave after 9.Qe4 and 9.0-0 in the Fried Liver, often giving "+=" or even "+/-".



From my correspondence experience , and from this particular doubt which  I had few months back in analysis i Asked GM Uri Blass to confirm this. And what i found is
1. Rybka is not optimized to play before moves 10 (Vas)
2. Use Naum 4.x for 1e4 e5 as its the best.
3. Close Position ? Shredder is King
4. Attacking Moves ? Fritz 10 and Hiarcs PB 2007.
5 Opening Novelties Shredder 12,Naum 4.2  Stockfish 1.6s , Fritz 12 and Shreddy 12 boy.
6. More pieces  and material imbalance Rybka 3.
So i would suggest use Naum 4. If you need it plz PM  Smileyme.
  
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 #10 - 03/29/10 at 02:15:17
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 03/28/10 at 22:44:35:
Master Om wrote on 03/28/10 at 13:04:43:
Let me explain you bit by bit as you dont seem to understand properly about engine analysis.
First the thing is For how much time you run an engine it evaluates the position as it was programmed. But The Analyser must know What and How to run them . There is no human present on earth that can beat a Computer program Tactics and for your kind information tactical ideaas comes from positional plans or strategical plans. If you think an engine is tacticaly stronger doesnot understand Strategy then it would be a dumb thing from you. That was the reason why Vas made 4 Engines  of Rybka just to use in analysis and GM Larry kaufman has put Positional ideas in Rybka 3 just for that and it is the best engine so far. So if you think Engines dont understand then that is foolish.
Second thing is all engines are unique to a particular position ( and that i can prove ) , While adding Strategical plans we need to proof that if we miss tactical shot or not.


A human being able to beat an engine's tactics in practical play is [b]irrelevant, because a human + computer can beat a computer (as seen before in correspondence play), this renders their purposes in analysis inferior to a human in conjunction with the computer, especially when evaluating theoretical positions in the opening.[/b]

And engines still don't understand positional play on par with humans, [b]including Rybka. This is why a strong chess player is still needed to guide it.
[/b]
Quote:
Third thing is If you think Infinite analysis is what i run to find the analysis then you are 100% wrong . I use my own analysis method using Persistent hash and that too Using Backward Analysis. It is not automated one Human interact is necessary. This method is used by Free style Players only in which GM Kosten is so good.


Hint: You're not the only one that uses backward analysis - do you seriously think you have some kind of special techniques with computer analysis that sets you apart from the rest? Drop the charade already.

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.

Quote:
And finally what it seems to be the truth is not actually . I have played many positions i shared in my analysis except  what bucker said upto 6 piece endgame and white has no chance of getting into the game in most positions.
And last but not the least It is Weakness in chess if your opponent can exploit.


Chronic structural weaknesses can be eventually exploited, which still doesn't explain the atrocious 13. Nxd5 which is as shortsighted as it gets.



Thats why I use Human + Engine Analysis.

Engines not understanding positional Ideas is Rubbish. It seems you are unaware of all those. Chess programming has gone to new level. My Pocket Fritz 4.2 beats Fritz 5.32 on quad Q6600 3.0 GHz. . This you can confirm from GM Larry Kaufman who put positional Ideas in Rybka. That is why Rybka File size is Bigger than any engine.

Yes I have a diffrent set of analysis technique and one of them Montecarlo Analysis running on depth 16 , 8cores. where HUman interaction is not necessary and you get all the moves with probability of the moves no move remains untouched there and upto the end game . Tactics is always important than Strategy b'coz strategy is needed for Tactics.

It is not what it seems. Thats not Chronic . Your Diagonisis is probably static not Dyanmic.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #9 - 03/29/10 at 00:15:31
Post Tools
Is there a specific engine which is supposed to be good in these Two Knights lines?  I note that Fritz tends to agree with most of the PGN's assessments in the 6.d4 lines, but regards some of the play as sub-optimal (e.g. Kaissiber 29's suggested improvement 12.Nc3! over the old 12.Na3 is given by Fritz as best after about five seconds' thought, assessing it as +=). 

But in contrast, Fritz goes further than my "roughly equal" assessment of the lines I gave after 9.Qe4 and 9.0-0 in the Fried Liver, often giving "+=" or even "+/-".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #8 - 03/28/10 at 22:44:35
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/28/10 at 13:04:43:
Let me explain you bit by bit as you dont seem to understand properly about engine analysis.
First the thing is For how much time you run an engine it evaluates the position as it was programmed. But The Analyser must know What and How to run them . There is no human present on earth that can beat a Computer program Tactics and for your kind information tactical ideaas comes from positional plans or strategical plans. If you think an engine is tacticaly stronger doesnot understand Strategy then it would be a dumb thing from you. That was the reason why Vas made 4 Engines  of Rybka just to use in analysis and GM Larry kaufman has put Positional ideas in Rybka 3 just for that and it is the best engine so far. So if you think Engines dont understand then that is foolish.
Second thing is all engines are unique to a particular position ( and that i can prove ) , While adding Strategical plans we need to proof that if we miss tactical shot or not.


A human being able to beat an engine's tactics in practical play is irrelevant, because a human + computer can beat a computer (as seen before in correspondence play), this renders their purposes in analysis inferior to a human in conjunction with the computer, especially when evaluating theoretical positions in the opening.

And engines still don't understand positional play on par with humans, including Rybka. This is why a strong chess player is still needed to guide it.

Quote:
Third thing is If you think Infinite analysis is what i run to find the analysis then you are 100% wrong . I use my own analysis method using Persistent hash and that too Using Backward Analysis. It is not automated one Human interact is necessary. This method is used by Free style Players only in which GM Kosten is so good.


Hint: You're not the only one that uses backward analysis - do you seriously think you have some kind of special techniques with computer analysis that sets you apart from the rest? Drop the charade already.

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.

Quote:
And finally what it seems to be the truth is not actually . I have played many positions i shared in my analysis except  what bucker said upto 6 piece endgame and white has no chance of getting into the game in most positions.
And last but not the least It is Weakness in chess if your opponent can exploit.


Chronic structural weaknesses can be eventually exploited, which still doesn't explain the atrocious 13. Nxd5 which is as shortsighted as it gets.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #7 - 03/28/10 at 13:04:43
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 03/28/10 at 04:11:26:
Master Om wrote on 03/28/10 at 03:13:05:
BPaulsen wrote on 03/27/10 at 21:27:04:
With all due respect, some of the evaluations make zero sense positionally (and they wouldn't to any master level player, I suspect), I'll give one example from Om's analysis (and there are more from what I can already tell, but this is for starters to highlight the problem - there's a number of similar positions where black has the isolated Pe6 and white has the bishop pair that he calls equal):

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. d4 Be6 7. Nxe6 fxe6 8. dxe5 Nxe5 9. Qh5 Ng6 10. 0-0 Qd7

This position is not equal no matter what angle you look at it from even though he already calls it that, white has the B pair and black has a  chronic weakness sitting on e6. Black doesn't have any significant dynamic factor that off-sets these.

However, if you continue further into what Om gives you get this horrific continuation - 11. Nc3 0-0-0 12. Rd1 c6 13. Nxd5 (deserves an "?!") exd5 - of course black's equal, white for some unknown reason as decided to fix black's structure and blunt his bishop pair in the process. Why is this move the main one given? Computers like it even though it's questionable strategically.

Computer analysis is great, but they suck at long term positional issues. This is why humans have to direct them.

First of all most of the lines were from Maarten de Zeuw Analysis. Second thing is in most lines given by him I myself proof checked it running Rybkas for whole days on 8 cores.
Quote:
Computer analysis is great, but they suck at long term positional issues.

Regarding this I dont agree fully. There are lots of way of analysis. This is true Human has to direct and that is what i have done.


What's 1 day, why not a week, a year, or a decade?

The time it spends calculating it doesn't magically change long-term positional features that are going to be there for a long time.


Computers are useful, however every single human should know better than to base an evaluation solely on a number an engine spits out in the early stages of the game.

If the line I mentioned was analysis done by someone else, then I find his judgement of that line questionable.



Let me explain you bit by bit as you dont seem to understand properly about engine analysis.
First the thing is For how much time you run an engine it evaluates the position as it was programmed. But The Analyser must know What and How to run them . There is no human present on earth that can beat a Computer program Tactics and for your kind information tactical ideaas comes from positional plans or strategical plans. If you think an engine is tacticaly stronger doesnot understand Strategy then it would be a dumb thing from you. That was the reason why Vas made 4 Engines  of Rybka just to use in analysis and GM Larry kaufman has put Positional ideas in Rybka 3 just for that and it is the best engine so far. So if you think Engines dont understand then that is foolish.
Second thing is all engines are unique to a particular position ( and that i can prove ) , While adding Strategical plans we need to proof that if we miss tactical shot or not.

Third thing is If you think Infinite analysis is what i run to find the analysis then you are 100% wrong . I use my own analysis method using Persistent hash and that too Using Backward Analysis. It is not automated one Human interact is necessary. This method is used by Free style Players only in which GM Kosten is so good.
And finally what it seems to be the truth is not actually . I have played many positions i shared in my analysis except  what bucker said upto 6 piece endgame and white has no chance of getting into the game in most positions.
And last but not the least It is Weakness in chess if your opponent can exploit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #6 - 03/28/10 at 04:11:26
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/28/10 at 03:13:05:
BPaulsen wrote on 03/27/10 at 21:27:04:
With all due respect, some of the evaluations make zero sense positionally (and they wouldn't to any master level player, I suspect), I'll give one example from Om's analysis (and there are more from what I can already tell, but this is for starters to highlight the problem - there's a number of similar positions where black has the isolated Pe6 and white has the bishop pair that he calls equal):

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. d4 Be6 7. Nxe6 fxe6 8. dxe5 Nxe5 9. Qh5 Ng6 10. 0-0 Qd7

This position is not equal no matter what angle you look at it from even though he already calls it that, white has the B pair and black has a  chronic weakness sitting on e6. Black doesn't have any significant dynamic factor that off-sets these.

However, if you continue further into what Om gives you get this horrific continuation - 11. Nc3 0-0-0 12. Rd1 c6 13. Nxd5 (deserves an "?!") exd5 - of course black's equal, white for some unknown reason as decided to fix black's structure and blunt his bishop pair in the process. Why is this move the main one given? Computers like it even though it's questionable strategically.

Computer analysis is great, but they suck at long term positional issues. This is why humans have to direct them.

First of all most of the lines were from Maarten de Zeuw Analysis. Second thing is in most lines given by him I myself proof checked it running Rybkas for whole days on 8 cores.
Quote:
Computer analysis is great, but they suck at long term positional issues.

Regarding this I dont agree fully. There are lots of way of analysis. This is true Human has to direct and that is what i have done.


What's 1 day, why not a week, a year, or a decade?

The time it spends calculating it doesn't magically change long-term positional features that are going to be there for a long time.

Computers are useful, however every single human should know better than to base an evaluation solely on a number an engine spits out in the early stages of the game.

If the line I mentioned was analysis done by someone else, then I find his judgement of that line questionable.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
Reply #5 - 03/26/10 at 03:02:59
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 03/25/10 at 17:55:50:
Master Om wrote on 03/25/10 at 17:31:41:
But you should know what engines to use where.
Just for your Idea. If you want to analyse Endings with more pawns then Use Zappa mexico II, If you have a position where double bishop is key use Naum 4.x , If you want to see a prophylactic move then use Deep Shredder 12 and Position is Tactical then Use Rybka Dynamic or Spark 0.3a ( better in openings where tactics is needed.). And if you want Novelty then go for Hiarcs Paderborn 2007 or Deep Junior 11.1a


God, is this what chess has become?  I'm all for using an engine to help analyze, but I'd rather not keep a whole kennel of them.  They get to howling at the moon, you know.

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.
  
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 #4 - 03/25/10 at 17:55:50
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/25/10 at 17:31:41:
But you should know what engines to use where.
Just for your Idea. If you want to analyse Endings with more pawns then Use Zappa mexico II, If you have a position where double bishop is key use Naum 4.x , If you want to see a prophylactic move then use Deep Shredder 12 and Position is Tactical then Use Rybka Dynamic or Spark 0.3a ( better in openings where tactics is needed.). And if you want Novelty then go for Hiarcs Paderborn 2007 or Deep Junior 11.1a


God, is this what chess has become?  I'm all for using an engine to help analyze, but I'd rather not keep a whole kennel of them.  They get to howling at the moon, you know.
  

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 #3 - 03/25/10 at 02:18:33
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 03/24/10 at 18:43:13:
How the hell do you have access to a 32 core server!?! Dang!  Cheesy

From my college.
  
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 #2 - 03/25/10 at 02:15:38
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 03/24/10 at 18:47:26:
TonyRo wrote on 03/24/10 at 18:43:13:
How the hell do you have access to a 32 core server!?! Dang!  Cheesy


I have access to a 20 core server, but my employers would be a tad upset if I ran Rybka on it.

I run it in my college on a AMD opteron servers mobos  having 8 opteron quads. I run it overnight in my college or through remotely. One of my friend Sujay Jaganathan runs it on 128 cores when he does his analysis. Sometimes I get it through remotely for analysis.
  
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 #1 - 03/24/10 at 18:47:26
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 03/24/10 at 18:43:13:
How the hell do you have access to a 32 core server!?! Dang!  Cheesy


I have access to a 20 core server, but my employers would be a tad upset if I ran Rybka on it.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Online


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Merits and Limits of Computerized Analysis
03/24/10 at 18:43:13
Post Tools
How the hell do you have access to a 32 core server!?! Dang!  Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo