Wie gesagt Eds Rebel wird beachtlich sein, aber doch nur der schwächere von beiden Programmen sein.
Der Feind ist , die gotthaften (Stockfish ist Gott) Programme mit Tal zu beschwindeln.
Das was Whittington immer gemacht hat.
Den Gegner in den Nebel des Grauens hineinzuziehen.
Um ihn dort zu Fall zu bringen.
Denn im Nebel gewinnt der, der mehr weiss.
Daran hat sich von damals bis heute nichts geändert.
White: CS Tal
Black: Chess Genius 2
Christmas 1994
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nf3 Qd8 9. Bd3 h6 10. Qd2 c5? 11. Nb5! O-O? 12. Rxh6! a6 13. Bh7+ Kh8 14. Rh5 axb5 15. Ke2! Nf6 16. exf6 Qxf6 17. Rah1 g6 18. Bxg6+ Kg8 19. Rh8+ Qxh8 20. Rxh8+ Kg7 21. Rh7+ Kxg6 22. Qh6+ 1-0
Daran wird sich wohl nie was ändern egal ob es gegen Genius, Fritz oder heute Stockfish geht.
Dynamic knowledge v. Combinational knowledge
============================================
Oxford Softworks CCS2-v9.0
White: CCS2 486/33
Black: Genius2 486/33
Venue: 1 minute per move
Comment: 1-0
1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5 1
3. Nc3 Nf6 3
4. Bg5 Be7 5
5. e5 Nfd7 8
6. h4 Bxg5
7. hxg5 { CCS2's opening book ends }
.... Qxg5
8. Nf3 Qd8 { Genius2's opening book ends }
9. Bd3 h6
10. Qd2 { CCS2's dynamic knowledge - preventing O-O because
of the threat of Rxh6 }
.... c5
11. Nb5 O-O { Catastrophic - any reasonable club player can
see this move is a disaster, but Genius2 has no
dynamic knowledge, there is no immediate mate so Genius2
thinks all is ok ! }
12. Rxh6 { CCS2 needs only a few seconds thought to find this move }
bR bN bB bQ -- bR bK --
bP bP -- bN -- bP bP --
-- -- -- -- bP -- -- wR
-- wN bP bP wP -- -- --
-- -- -- wP -- -- -- --
-- -- -- wB -- wN -- --
wP wP wP wQ -- wP wP --
wR -- -- -- wK -- -- --
.... a6 { Incredibly, Genius2 thinks the position is even ! }
13. Bh7+ Kh8
14. Rh5 axb5 { Genius2 still thinks this game is drawn ! }
15. Ke2 { CCS2 finds the killer move .... }
.... Nf6 { Genius2 begins to see the trouble now ... }
16. exf6 Qxf6
17. Rah1 g6
18. Bxg6+ Kg8
19. Rh8+ Qxh8
20. Rxh8+ Kg7
21. Rh7+ Kxg6
22. Qh6+ Kf5 { and mate in 2 more moves. Genius2, the classical
program, soundly defeated by dynamic knowledge.
CCS2 didn't know its attack would win material or
deliver mate, it just knew, dynamically, the the
attack was strong and worth the sacrifice of material. }
This game clearly shows the development and strength of the 'looking-glass'
paradigm. Genius2, a classical program, seemed to have no idea of what
was going on. CCS2 had dynamic knowledge of the strength of its attack from
move 12 on, CCS2 knew from its evaluation function; Genius2 only began to
see the trouble on move 15, seven half-moves later, Genius2's knowledge
was combinational, only 'known' when the search found it.
Who will be the developer ?
===========================
To answer our third question - 'who will be the developer ?', it is necessary to look at the personality of the classical programmers and their hangers-on. These programmers are characterised by a failure to show their emotions (do they ever smile), fear (just watch them operating at tournaments), refusal to discuss how their programs work (just try talking to them) , aversion to taking risks. It has always surprised me that the 'top' programmers are not good chess players. The hangers-on only make a little money, they jealously support their chosen proteges, and viciously attack their opponents. The hangers-on know little, pretend to know much and are governed by fear and greed.
Overall the impression is of a static, non-risk taking, hostile, World War I environment. The new paradigm will come from an unexpected quarter. From a developer with extrovert personality, accustomed to taking risks, a developer with chess knowledge, probably someone unpopular with the classical paradigm supporters, certainly unpopular
with the hangers-on and computer chess entourage. This developer will have been and certainly will be furiously attacked by the classicists.
Search - the lazy programmer's way to avoid evaluating a position.
==================================================================
The new paradigm differs from the classical by one simple conceptual switch.
The classical paradigm makes fast and simple evaluation at each node and generates intelligence from the search tree. The classical programmer looks for ways to make his search more efficient and his evaluation function simpler and faster. The 'looking-glass' paradigm makes slow and complex evaluations at each node and prefers to prune the search tree by use of this evaluation function. In this model search is to be avoided
unless absolutely necessary. Thus the search tree is not central to the new paradigm, rather the search tree is used to find details overlooked, or mistakes made, by the evaluation function. The 'looking-glass' paradigm has the components of human thought - detailed, intuitive evaluation, with search carried out to ensure that the program is not
falling into any traps. I estimate that the difference in nodes per second between and extreme classical program and a 'looking-glass' program will be of the order of 20-30 times, sufficient to give the classical program an extra two plies of search (albeit with reduced knowledge at the nodes). Thus the increased knowledge of the 'looking-glass' program has to compensate for this apparently reduced search depth. The looking-glass strategy necessitates much programming effort, and requires the programmer to have an exceptionally good knowledge of chess strategy and tactics. When such a program is first
being developed it will constantly be outplayed by classical programs, for classical programs see everything within their horizon and the newly developing 'looking-glass' program cannot yet hope to know sufficient tactical and positional themes to compete, but our experience shows that once breakthrough (a knowledge o f sufficient chess themes to compensate for reduced search depth) occurs the looking-glass program begins to
consistently outplay the classical programs. Further advantages emerge from the high level of chess knowledge in the evaluation function - better move selection and move sorting, resulting in more efficient search - more possibilities of accurate forward pruning, resulting in smaller search trees. With increases in tree size (from faster hardware), these advantages are geometric.
B-Search or A-B-Search? - NO! Evaluation based or search based!
===============================================================
The classicists maintain the computer chess dichotomy of B-search (which I understand means pruning occurs at all levels of the tree) or A-B Search (which apparently means that part of the search is full width).
The looking-glass programmer condemns this dichotomy as meaningless.
The new paradigm makes the issue clear: chess programs either have simple evaluation and generate intelligence through search, or have complex evaluations and use limited search as a backup to cover oversights and mistakes. All chess programs prune in one way or another, but looking-glass programs, with complex evaluation, are able to prune more.
Of course, the issue is not so black and white. There is a grey scale between the extreme looking-glass (human play style) and extreme classical style. At the classical end of the scale the B or A-B dichotomy tries to position the program on the scale, but basically classicists believe in search. At the looking-glass end of the scale the issue is how much does the evaluation function allow us to prune or extend - how many risks can we take based on our evaluation function ? Basically looking-glass programmers believe in evaluation.
Von Manstein
============
If, as is said, chess is war, then there must be lessons to be learnt from military history. I have already alluded to the static, boring First World War style of the classical programs (and their programmers !). The opposite style can be found in several histories, Rommel in North Africa, Alexander the Great against Darius, Von Manstein in Russia. Alexander, despite being outnumbered many times, concentrated the powerful mobile part of his army, attacked the stronger Persians, cut through and went straight for Darius himself. The bulk of Darius's army was not engaged, but the battle was decisively won - a classic king attack. Von Manstein (and Rommel) both understood that the power of the outnumbered German army lay in superior staff work, concentration of forces, striking blows to knock the enemy off balance. The looking-glass chess program must contain knowledge of these dynamic elements; and it is only the looking-glass program that has the knowledge and evaluation time available to calculate such ephemerals.
Tal function
============
To find a chess player who understood the king attack, the concentration of forces, the striking of blows to unbalance the opponent, one need look no further than Michael Tal, Russian grandmaster, and player of such romantic and swashbuckling style that his games continue to thrill all lovers of chess. For the developers of the Complete Chess System 2 it was an emotional, and unexpected, experience to find their program playing, sacrificing, in the style of Tal. Opposing programs, well respected, began to fall like dominoes, they appeared to have absolutely no understanding of CCS2's style. We
were almost able to guarantee exciting games against all our opponents.
We believe that the progress we have made with our program, the looking-glass algorithm which we have developed gives us the justification to call our program the Complete Chess System 2 - TAL.
:->
CSS-Shop