New Search Method(s)

[Michael Sherwin]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

Botvinnik's algorithm does exactly as you describe. The algorithm that I described earlier is based on his algorithm, but includes all chess positions as it measures the eval and not just material. Although, I think that Botvinnik's tactical algorithm can be used in one of two ways within a modern alpha-beta searcher--as a presearch to find deep tactics or as an extension mechanism.

Botvinnik's algorithm would choose moves based on a piece's ability to reach a square within N (3) moves that would make a new attack. My algorithm checks a piece's (or piece's) ability to affect the eval in a positive way within N moves. It just limits the pieces moves to moves that cannot positively affect the eval sooner. It is hard to put into words.
But, let me try.

If a move does not positively affect the eval when followed by a null move then it is a candidate to be included only if it can be combined with another move that has the same characteristic or was not possible before. But, if both moves are played and a second null move is made and it does result in a better eval then it is included. Etc.

[bob]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

Botvinnik's algorithm does exactly as you describe. The algorithm that I described earlier is based on his algorithm, but includes all chess positions as it measures the eval and not just material. Although, I think that Botvinnik's tactical algorithm can be used in one of two ways within a modern alpha-beta searcher--as a presearch to find deep tactics or as an extension mechanism.

Botvinnik's algorithm would choose moves based on a piece's ability to reach a square within N (3) moves that would make a new attack. My algorithm checks a piece's (or piece's) ability to affect the eval in a positive way within N moves. It just limits the pieces moves to moves that cannot positively affect the eval sooner. It is hard to put into words.
But, let me try.

If a move does not positively affect the eval when followed by a null move then it is a candidate to be included only if it can be combined with another move that has the same characteristic or was not possible before. But, if both moves are played and a second null move is made and it does result in a better eval then it is included. Etc.

"Botvinnik's algorithm" does absolutely nothing. It was fraud, pure and simple, as Berliner clearly proved in his letter to the ICCA that was published in the JICCA many years ago.

[Michael Sherwin]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

Botvinnik's algorithm does exactly as you describe. The algorithm that I described earlier is based on his algorithm, but includes all chess positions as it measures the eval and not just material. Although, I think that Botvinnik's tactical algorithm can be used in one of two ways within a modern alpha-beta searcher--as a presearch to find deep tactics or as an extension mechanism.

Botvinnik's algorithm would choose moves based on a piece's ability to reach a square within N (3) moves that would make a new attack. My algorithm checks a piece's (or piece's) ability to affect the eval in a positive way within N moves. It just limits the pieces moves to moves that cannot positively affect the eval sooner. It is hard to put into words.
But, let me try.

If a move does not positively affect the eval when followed by a null move then it is a candidate to be included only if it can be combined with another move that has the same characteristic or was not possible before. But, if both moves are played and a second null move is made and it does result in a better eval then it is included. Etc.

"Botvinnik's algorithm" does absolutely nothing. It was fraud, pure and simple, as Berliner clearly proved in his letter to the ICCA that was published in the JICCA many years ago.

Fraud is a harsh word. Flawed, maybe is a better word. However, his idea still might have merit. I believe his idea originated with Emanuel Lasker's example of having someone with the white pieces play several moves in a row with conditions--no move above the 4th rank and black was allowed to respond (an interdiction) to a direct threat. This is speculation on my part, but it makes sense.

[Don]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

If you are talking about Botvinik's program I have had many discussions with top chess program authors and so far not one of them thinks this was legitimate.

What he wrote on this was highly abstract to the point of absurdity. It was one of those things that appealed to the artistic side of the brain, but was pure double-talk or gibberish. This same observation is shared with many program authors.

[Michael Sherwin]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

If you are talking about Botvinik's program I have had many discussions with top chess program authors and so far not one of them thinks this was legitimate.

What he wrote on this was highly abstract to the point of absurdity. It was one of those things that appealed to the artistic side of the brain, but was pure double-talk or gibberish. This same observation is shared with many program authors.

Botvinnik never had an actual program. He wrote his algorithm in mathematical language adapted to chess. He then paper executed his algorithm on a select position or so to demonstrate how the algorithm could find deep winning tactics. To all but Botvinnik his mathematical rendition of the algorithm would look like utter gibberish. Then in the 80's some group of programmers tried to create a program based on Botvinnik's algorithm and failed. It was not known if Botvinnik had any meaningful interaction with the programmers.

[Don]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

If you are talking about Botvinik's program I have had many discussions with top chess program authors and so far not one of them thinks this was legitimate.

What he wrote on this was highly abstract to the point of absurdity. It was one of those things that appealed to the artistic side of the brain, but was pure double-talk or gibberish. This same observation is shared with many program authors.

Botvinnik never had an actual program. He wrote his algorithm in mathematical language adapted to chess. He then paper executed his algorithm on a select position or so to demonstrate how the algorithm could find deep winning tactics. To all but Botvinnik his mathematical rendition of the algorithm would look like utter gibberish. Then in the 80's some group of programmers tried to create a program based on Botvinnik's algorithm and failed. It was not known if Botvinnik had any meaningful interaction with the programmers.

Yes, but then the Ipollito programmers succeeded in using Botvinniks ideas to make a highly unique and superior program.

[Michael Sherwin]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

If you are talking about Botvinik's program I have had many discussions with top chess program authors and so far not one of them thinks this was legitimate.

What he wrote on this was highly abstract to the point of absurdity. It was one of those things that appealed to the artistic side of the brain, but was pure double-talk or gibberish. This same observation is shared with many program authors.

Botvinnik never had an actual program. He wrote his algorithm in mathematical language adapted to chess. He then paper executed his algorithm on a select position or so to demonstrate how the algorithm could find deep winning tactics. To all but Botvinnik his mathematical rendition of the algorithm would look like utter gibberish. Then in the 80's some group of programmers tried to create a program based on Botvinnik's algorithm and failed. It was not known if Botvinnik had any meaningful interaction with the programmers.

Okay, now I'm upset!

I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but, it is a known fact that people with lesser minds often view the ideas of people with greater minds as gibberish. That is because the lesser minds are not capable of understanding the greater mind when the greater mind goes above their level. I do not make that mistake. Botvinnik's algorithm is hard to put into words, but, I am going to try.

The basic premise is that the attack on and winning of material is what ultimately leads to victory, especially in certain types of positions that are of a tactical nature. So it makes sense that moves that lead to attacks should be included. Therefore any move that makes a new attack is included and any move that leads to a move that makes a new attack is included and any move that leads to a move that leads to a move that makes a new attack is included, etc. Capturing the moving piece or blocking it are interdiction moves that must be accounted for in the sequence. The material balance formula is applied on every square landed upon by a piece for the above move selection criteria. If the material balance is shown to be <> zero then the line is terminated and the next move is looked at. Botvinnik himself said, that his algorithm would not find moves to play if there is no material to win. He never claimed that it was an example of a complete chess program.

His idea is anything but gibberish!

[Michael Sherwin]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

If you are talking about Botvinik's program I have had many discussions with top chess program authors and so far not one of them thinks this was legitimate.

What he wrote on this was highly abstract to the point of absurdity. It was one of those things that appealed to the artistic side of the brain, but was pure double-talk or gibberish. This same observation is shared with many program authors.

Botvinnik never had an actual program. He wrote his algorithm in mathematical language adapted to chess. He then paper executed his algorithm on a select position or so to demonstrate how the algorithm could find deep winning tactics. To all but Botvinnik his mathematical rendition of the algorithm would look like utter gibberish. Then in the 80's some group of programmers tried to create a program based on Botvinnik's algorithm and failed. It was not known if Botvinnik had any meaningful interaction with the programmers.

Yes, but then the Ipollito programmers succeeded in using Botvinniks ideas to make a highly unique and superior program.

Did they?

[Michael Sherwin]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

If you are talking about Botvinik's program I have had many discussions with top chess program authors and so far not one of them thinks this was legitimate.

What he wrote on this was highly abstract to the point of absurdity. It was one of those things that appealed to the artistic side of the brain, but was pure double-talk or gibberish. This same observation is shared with many program authors.

Botvinnik never had an actual program. He wrote his algorithm in mathematical language adapted to chess. He then paper executed his algorithm on a select position or so to demonstrate how the algorithm could find deep winning tactics. To all but Botvinnik his mathematical rendition of the algorithm would look like utter gibberish. Then in the 80's some group of programmers tried to create a program based on Botvinnik's algorithm and failed. It was not known if Botvinnik had any meaningful interaction with the programmers.

Yes, but then the Ipollito programmers succeeded in using Botvinniks ideas to make a highly unique and superior program.

Did they?

My dog just came in panting, obviously overheated, wet, had a sore bum and obviously very upset at me!

"Oops sorry, I forgot to tell you that the new mailman is a triathlon winner!"

[bob]

I have read about very selective tactical program in mid 1980's that could find deep combinations using very narrow search tree. The problem that it does not return any move when there are no tactical solution in the given test position, so it could not play full chess.

Botvinnik's algorithm does exactly as you describe. The algorithm that I described earlier is based on his algorithm, but includes all chess positions as it measures the eval and not just material. Although, I think that Botvinnik's tactical algorithm can be used in one of two ways within a modern alpha-beta searcher--as a presearch to find deep tactics or as an extension mechanism.

Botvinnik's algorithm would choose moves based on a piece's ability to reach a square within N (3) moves that would make a new attack. My algorithm checks a piece's (or piece's) ability to affect the eval in a positive way within N moves. It just limits the pieces moves to moves that cannot positively affect the eval sooner. It is hard to put into words.
But, let me try.

If a move does not positively affect the eval when followed by a null move then it is a candidate to be included only if it can be combined with another move that has the same characteristic or was not possible before. But, if both moves are played and a second null move is made and it does result in a better eval then it is included. Etc.

"Botvinnik's algorithm" does absolutely nothing. It was fraud, pure and simple, as Berliner clearly proved in his letter to the ICCA that was published in the JICCA many years ago.

Fraud is a harsh word. Flawed, maybe is a better word. However, his idea still might have merit. I believe his idea originated with Emanuel Lasker's example of having someone with the white pieces play several moves in a row with conditions--no move above the 4th rank and black was allowed to respond (an interdiction) to a direct threat. This is speculation on my part, but it makes sense.

Fraud is the right word. His "algorithm" never played chess. The analysis he claimed came from Pioneer was proved to be completely bogus.