To kick off some technical discussions

[hyatt]

I'm still waiting for objective measurements. Looking for material down won games is subjective. Which is better, to be a queen down for 10 moves and then win, or to be a rook down for 24 moves and then win? Which is better, to be a queen down and almost win, but ultimately lose, or being a queen up and almost losing but ultimately win?

True science requires accurate measurement. Elo gave us an accurate measuring tool. Since there is no other measurement around, discarding the only objective one we have seems a bit rash.

Now if one wants to simply rank players on a "Tal-ish" scale (or a Karpov-ish scale for boring) there's nothing wrong with doing that. And if one wants to move from the boring side to the Tal side, without hurting overall performance, there's nothing wrong with doing that. However, the flashiest sword-fighter in the world still has the same problem against a gunfighter. He ends up dead, no matter how dashing his personality is.

Curious you criticise on objective/precision grounds what would of course be a fuzzy way to perform scaling when the internals of the beancounter engine (yours included) contain the fuzziest of fuzzy nonsense aka evaluation function

Until we can search to mate from the opening position, this will always be a fuzzy mechanism. But one can still measure the _performance_ of a fuzzy mechanism, using an objective approach, to improve the fuzzy algorithm. Humans are quite "fuzzy" yet we still rank 'em using Elo last time I looked. And when I used to play in real tournaments, most of the discussion between rounds was either about a specific position, or about how many points that player won or lost that round, or the last tournament, etc.

[hyatt]

I'm still waiting for objective measurements. Looking for material down won games is subjective. Which is better, to be a queen down for 10 moves and then win, or to be a rook down for 24 moves and then win? Which is better, to be a queen down and almost win, but ultimately lose, or being a queen up and almost losing but ultimately win?

True science requires accurate measurement. Elo gave us an accurate measuring tool. Since there is no other measurement around, discarding the only objective one we have seems a bit rash.

Now if one wants to simply rank players on a "Tal-ish" scale (or a Karpov-ish scale for boring) there's nothing wrong with doing that. And if one wants to move from the boring side to the Tal side, without hurting overall performance, there's nothing wrong with doing that. However, the flashiest sword-fighter in the world still has the same problem against a gunfighter. He ends up dead, no matter how dashing his personality is.

Chess is a game for humans to enjoy. They enjoy playing and watching exciting games. Exciting games very often involve sacrifices. So, measuring programs on a scale which assesses excitability (with various fuzzy parameters to account for your above and other stuff) seems eminently senseful to me. And quite easy to do.

Show me some press releases about the 1500/1800/2200 players that play wildly speculative chess but can't get up to the IM/GM level on the objective Elo scale. So it isn't _all_ about playing attractive (speculative) chess. It is about playing speculative chess _and_ winning. And when a speculative player loses to a "solid" player in a match, see which one gets congratulated...

Most important (to most humans) are the results. If results are equal, then "style points" certainly apply. But results have to be equal first, else results "gets the nod."

Maybe you are just worried Crafty is not a very exciting opponent, after all, as you keep telling us, it is optimised for boring old win/loss/draw/ELO performance?

btw, the swordfighter lives again to fight another day (nobody is killed in chess) but he does get the newspaper coverage, the articles and almost certainly the girls, not to mention the wine. The boring gunfighter goes home to loneliness and his Wii .....

[hyatt]

I'm still waiting for objective measurements. Looking for material down won games is subjective. Which is better, to be a queen down for 10 moves and then win, or to be a rook down for 24 moves and then win? Which is better, to be a queen down and almost win, but ultimately lose, or being a queen up and almost losing but ultimately win?

True science requires accurate measurement. Elo gave us an accurate measuring tool. Since there is no other measurement around, discarding the only objective one we have seems a bit rash.

Now if one wants to simply rank players on a "Tal-ish" scale (or a Karpov-ish scale for boring) there's nothing wrong with doing that. And if one wants to move from the boring side to the Tal side, without hurting overall performance, there's nothing wrong with doing that. However, the flashiest sword-fighter in the world still has the same problem against a gunfighter. He ends up dead, no matter how dashing his personality is.

Chess is a game for humans to enjoy. They enjoy playing and watching exciting games. Exciting games very often involve sacrifices. So, measuring programs on a scale which assesses excitability (with various fuzzy parameters to account for your above and other stuff) seems eminently senseful to me. And quite easy to do.

Maybe you are just worried Crafty is not a very exciting opponent, after all, as you keep telling us, it is optimised for boring old win/loss/draw/ELO performance?

btw, the swordfighter lives again to fight another day (nobody is killed in chess) but he does get the newspaper coverage, the articles and almost certainly the girls, not to mention the wine. The boring gunfighter goes home to loneliness and his Wii .....

The flat earth is also more romantic. But people who cling to it are called stupid. Science banishes darkness. You may think chess is only a game so we can cling to darkness there in safety. But this is harboring a viral infection in our brain that can only end in religion. Be careful of protecting treasured feelings at the expense of science. A joy like that must be dropped like a bad habit.

There are more assertive conjectures in the above than I care to argue about, but, for starters, your initial assumption that computer chess as it currently is performed is science is staggeringly unsound. Computer chess may have once held out some sort of hope for usefulness or even as a hope as a platform on which science can be done, but the science is long gone, the development goal of ELO, ELo and more ELO is a) going nowhere and b) utterly obsessive and the whole process is about as unscientific as you can get.

Gimme fun every time instead.

I hope you will not take offense if I observe that for a statement about science this seems very subjective. To say the science is gone and that Elo is going nowhere is backed up by nothing but the air it takes to speak. What you are really saying is that the "art" is gone and that the science of game tree search is not lending itself to subjective ideals of this supposed art. I would contend the art was a side-effect of recovering from or punishing less than optimal play. It was an illusion of beauty that could only arise from errors.

The science has disappeared partly in that people who call themselves 'scientists' are no longer interested in the subject and partly because the field practitioners are engaged in a sort-of obsessive hobby rather than a scientific discipline. Despite the pretense over many years, the pretense of the academic journal, the pseudo mathematics and statistics, this never was a science, it was a con-trick designed to get some money through bullshit. That money has now dried up.

Science re rating lists, for example.

1. The data is improperly collected without controls

2. There is political-personal interference in what is and what isn't allowed as data (banned programs)

3. The games played come from a play pool that is restricted to like-playing entities and therefore veers off to nowhere or at best a cul-de-sac

etc.


ELO going nowhere, means: what is the point of obsessively working on programs and then having others obsessively test them, publishing allegedly statistical scientific enumerated lists of how these programs (crippled chess entities with super lookahead) perform against each other in an endless quest for more ELO points.

What are they going to do with all these ELO points? What does it matter? Isn't it just an obsessive behaviour, pointless, filling in the void?

It is not pointless in actual fact. The reason is because the search is always going deeper. Search eventually corrects errors because search eventually discovers the end of the game.

You criticize programs playing each other, but it's like Kasparov's comment on why he engaged in post-game analysis with Karpov, and man he detests. His answer? "Who else can I discuss these things with?" Who else was able to play at Kasparov's level? Only Karpov at the time.

The same is now true of the computer. No human is in the same league with the best programs anymore. Therefore, how is your statement being objective in saying no science has happened or is happening?

it is pointless because search will NEVER get to the end of the game. You can stop the development process now, next year or in ten years time. My contention is stop now because there's nothing to be gained anymore, the target is unattainable anyway and any targets that there were, were reached long ago - so why continue the incestuous fight other than for reasons of obsessiveness?

It is not science, it's an obsessive hobby.

No, because there _is_ a goal. I want to win _every_ game I play. Whether it be tennis, pool, shooting skeet, playing chess, etc. There are exceptions in that when my kids were very young, I "threw" many games intentionally because nobody likes to lose every game. But for every game I have ever played, from high-school football, basketball, baseball, track, for every "board game" I have ever played, from chess, checkers, monopoly, life, careers, for every card game I have played, from poker, rook, blackjack, hearts, bridge, there is one common denominator. I play to win. And everyone measures their own success by measuring how often they win. So trying to take "winning" out of the game of chess removes the "game" completely. That is the _point_ of playing. A "mini-war" played on an 8x8 board.

[Uly]

btw, there is no such thing as a 'sound sacrifice'

By sound, I mean it doesn't lose the game. For instance, playing Bd2 or playing Bxh5 are okay on a theoretical game perspective, if all top engines choose Bd2 (because it's 0.01 better or so) and another engine plays Bxh5, then the sacrifice is deemed as sound, and the engine is rewarded.

For comparison take:

1. d4 d5 2. Qd3 Nf6 3. Qxh7

That's a clearly unsound sacrifice, an engine should not be rewarded by such a playing style.

[hyatt]

Here's a question: How do you _KNOW_ it is unsound? What if a 40+ ply search proves that it wins, even though it just looks like it tosses the queen out a window? To be certain, you have to be able to search deep enough to see the win, loss or draw. Anything less and it is only speculation.

[Rebel]

btw, there is no such thing as a 'sound sacrifice', the essential element is that we don't know the answer to the question: "is this attack worth my rook?" because we have no scientific (that stupid word again) or accurate way to measure the material value of an attack over the board. If we can measure it and the answer is positive, it is no sacrifice

In the end chess is ALL about search, it's just that humans can't think deep and accurate so STYLE and STRATEGY became important ingredients. Both are replacements for the lack of (deep) search. It's were computers excel, search and I don't mind (any longer BTW). The goal is to beat the opponent I don't care how it is done as long as it is done. Not very romantic I agree.

BTW, I agree that CC is not science. About the only thing in chess programs that is scientific is the A-B algorithm, hashing too. The rest is chess-dependent and many roads lead to Rome.

Rating-lists: it's good to have a rating list program vs program developed to play its games optimal. It's what people want, to see in a wink who's best, second, third. Disadvantage of such a competition is that programmers tend to only improve things where they lose too many points against other programs.

I once got a complaint from a customer, he said: your new program does only better in things it already excells, what about the things it doesn't excell?. He was right of course and I will never forget his remark. But in our scene where the rating lists rule the competitive programmer is more or less forced to improve what is already excellent, in order to survive.

So instead of replacing the current rating lists have a second / third list with a different focus. BB made a suggestion, perhaps Swami's strategic test is something. There are tons of positions patterns the top-engines are clueless and by creating such a rating list programmers might find it competitive to compete also in this area.

2n5/kP6/8/K7/4B3/8/8/8 w - - best move bxc8=N bxc8=B (draw)
8/5p1k/r5pp/P7/3R3P/6P1/5PK1/8 w - - best move Ra4 and not Rd5 (draw)
6k1/2p3np/1p1p2p1/3P4/1PPK1R2/6PB/7P/4r3 w - - Be6+!! Gelfer-Manievich, Jerusalem 1985. All about an active white king in a rook-ending
8/pp4pp/4k3/3rPp2/1Pr4P/2B1KPP1/1P6/4R3 b - - 1..Rxc3! the only way to make progress.
3r4/7p/Rp4k1/5p2/4p3/2P5/PP3P1P/5K2 b - - 1..Rd2!! Tarrasch-Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1911. Passive defence with 1...Rd6 or 1...Rb8 is doomed to failure.
1r6/4k3/r2p2p1/2pR1p1p/2P1pP1P/pPK1P1P1/P7/1B6 b - - 1..Rxb3+! the only way to make progress

Paste these positions into your favorite engine and shiver

Ed

[hyatt]

Not all of those are hard today, but the point remains. A bishop "pair" that is no good, etc. Of course, the kind of testing I do will never fix these, but these are so rare they have to effect anyway. These would only rise to the "fix me" state if everything else is solved so that we only end up drawing a few positions like these. To improve, we'd have to fix them and make the fix clever enough that it doesn't impact us elsewhere such as in search speed...

[Fernando]

What a heck has to do with anything this obsession to discuss or trying to "refute" the art in chess or whatever, as do some gentlemen here?
Or This obsession with the supposed fact that anyone trying to get fun from a program is trying to obscure the fact he is beaten by a "scientific" artifact?
Let me clear a couple of things:
a) There is NO science in chess. Science is not about counting things or calculate things like making a long addition. Science is a way to make models of the world that are simplistic from the beginning but has some utility for us to manage ourselves into it. It is an educated guess with some ground in facts... to date. Which is the science of chess? Which are the "laws" that are into it? Which is the scientific statement in saying that in 3 ply there is a mate? There is in chess no more science than some people like to pour everywhere they can to satisfy his egotistic vision of them as being scientific and logic.
B)There is no art in chess. Art is years light beyond a game of chess. You can call a game "artistic" if you wish, but there is no art in it, whatsoever. Art has to do with what Schopenhauer explained so well in his main work. At the side of art, chess is just a childish game.
C) GAME is the word that we forget. Chess is a GAME. A game is a mocked fight according to rules and the purpose is to give fun.
d) So FUN is the final word. And its contrary, BOREDOM. The so called "scientific chess programs are not scientific, but just boring. The artistic programs gives fun.
So, if you wan to be fully scientific and logic, you should select the product that gives more of that we pursue from the beginning. To choose the boring one is kind of substitution, identification with GOD. You are not a good player, but then you identify with the machine to become good trough it. Very religious emotion indeed.
The sheer fact that peans has been sung here in prise of "scientific" chess approach, that give light to the world and impedes that we could fall in darkness and evil, is almost a joke.
Come on boy, just play a GAME!

Fern

[hyatt]

What a heck has to do with anything this obsession to discuss or trying to "refute" the art in chess or whatever, as do some gentlemen here?
Or This obsession with the supposed fact that anyone trying to get fun from a program is trying to obscure the fact he is beaten by a "scientific" artifact?
Let me clear a couple of things:
a) There is NO science in chess. Science is not about counting things or calculate things like making a long addition. Science is a way to make models of the world that are simplistic from the beginning but has some utility for us to manage ourselves into it. It is an educated guess with some ground in facts... to date. Which is the science of chess? Which are the "laws" that are into it? Which is the scientific statement in saying that in 3 ply there is a mate? There is in chess no more science than some people like to pour everywhere they can to satisfy his egotistic vision of them as being scientific and logic.
B)There is no art in chess. Art is years light beyond a game of chess. You can call a game "artistic" if you wish, but there is no art in it, whatsoever. Art has to do with what Schopenhauer explained so well in his main work. At the side of art, chess is just a childish game.
C) GAME is the word that we forget. Chess is a GAME. A game is a mocked fight according to rules and the purpose is to give fun.
d) So FUN is the final word. And its contrary, BOREDOM. The so called "scientific chess programs are not scientific, but just boring. The artistic programs gives fun.
So, if you wan to be fully scientific and logic, you should select the product that gives more of that we pursue from the beginning. To choose the boring one is kind of substitution, identification with GOD. You are not a good player, but then you identify with the machine to become good trough it. Very religious emotion indeed.
The sheer fact that peans has been sung here in prise of "scientific" chess approach, that give light to the world and impedes that we could fall in darkness and evil, is almost a joke.
Come on boy, just play a GAME!

Fern

I disagree with your "no science" statement. We use "the scientific method" every day. We form a hypothesis, which leads to new or modified programming code. We then test the code to see if it produces better results or not. We repeat this many times, and watch as the programs go from beginner, to expert, to master, to grand-master, to super-grandmaster,to (one day) completely unbeatable (by humans). Producing those kinds of results in not an effect of serendipity, or random chance. Science is about objective measurement/evaluation. Granted that not all things computer chess are done objectively, and for yours-truly, subjective methods ruled the roost for many years because we had so little time to test things on the Cray. But since I started the cluster testing, our approach has become highly scientific in the way we evaluate changes. I won't claim that all of chess is scientific, because intuition leads us to make many programming changes or additions. But science tells us whether to keep the changes or discard them.

For me, computer chess is not about the "fun" of playing a game. My "fun" comes from creating something that wins games in OTB experiments. That is what has driven me for 42 years now. I don't play much chess nowadays, but I still enjoy making Crafty stronger, coming up with new ideas to test, new approaches to test, etc. Playing the games is a serious business, however. If you take football, I am not sure "fun" fits in as nobody likes to practice. It hurts. It's hard. It is tiring. But it makes you better, so that you can win on Friday nights or Saturdays (or even Sundays, of course). And the winning is fun. Ask the losers if they enjoyed the game. So yes there is a lot of fun in this hobby, it just might not be where you expect it to be, depending on your background and interests. You seem to enjoy playing the game. I wonder whether you enjoy it more if you win and less if you lose? I don't like losing in anything, myself.

[Fernando]

Hi Bob:
Well, your way to get fun is completely legitimate and admirable, who could say otherwise? Specially you, that has been engaged into this for so many years and without greed or personal ambition, just to push the frontiers of your field.
Respect to win or to lose, obviously I like to win and I hate to lose, at least in the things that matters most, not chess or not chess against computer but yes, I hate to lose to human . Nevertheless, the fact we prefer to win does not change the "just game" nature of it. Chess is a game even if we consider it the most important thing and we engage our personalities into it, as GM does.
Respect the scientific nature of chess and the arguments you use, i would say that one thing is to use a methodical approach to programming as you does and everybody does -when mentally sane- to perform any endeavor -even art!- and another thing is if chess as such is a scientific thing. Science has at least two faces; the way to acquire it and the result of that effort. In the first case we have the scientific method where observation and hypothesis matters, in the second case or face we have the "corpus legi" of the thing, the result, the system of concepts and laws that, to date, give to us a model of some field of reality. Chess is not science in this last aspect, but I agree it could be considered scientific in the method to play it or program it. But then is not more scientific than any endeavor where reason and calculation matters. In the case, by example, of the great "artistic" games we all know, as the immortal and the ever live by Anderssen, there is beauty but lot of calculation. The guy did not simply pushed pieces.
At last, any and every man get his kick wherever and where he can. Mine is to play, yours is to program. And with that we both get some happy hours
My best
Fern