King's gambit "weakly solved" by Vas. Admit it. This guy definately knows what he does
Solved is the wrong word. Maybe the best move the computer could come up with is more like it.
This whole thing comes down to the validity of the assumption that if Rybka scores 5.12 or more, it is a win with 99.99999999% certainty and that it follows that this happens to be the same certainty for the entire results.
I really have a difficult time with both those assumptions and I want to know how he came up with that value. This is about 1 in 10 billion positions! That means if you sacrifice a queen, or a rook plus a pawn or two that you automatically lose (except once every 10,000,000,000 times.)
I have to say that I think this is utter nonsense, my years of experience in computer chess and other games tells me that no matter what the "score" reported by the program (other than Mate) there are holes in the knowledge and search that can make this go wrong.
The problem with Vasik is that he's understanding that little from computerchess, that most of his interviews seem like april fools jokes.
Not only does he lack insight in computerchess, i refer to his statement in CCC from 2005 also explaining why rybka showed so little nps - he explained that by saying that it had more chessknowledge. He just gets an executable and then as a chessplayer tries to explain things based upon guessing.
Just look at his interview given to a Russian site some years ago. So this probably being an april's fool joke it's difficult to distinguish from previous statements.
The problem with Vasik is that he's understanding that little from computerchess, that most of his interviews seem like april fools jokes.
Not only does he lack insight in computerchess, i refer to his statement in CCC from 2005 also explaining why rybka showed so little nps - he explained that by saying that it had more chessknowledge. He just gets an executable and then as a chessplayer tries to explain things based upon guessing.
Just look at his interview given to a Russian site some years ago. So this probably being an april's fool joke it's difficult to distinguish from previous statements.
IMO vas is only a salesman like ossi weiner was.
with the insights of a salesman, like ossi weiner had.
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....
King's gambit "weakly solved" by Vas. Admit it. This guy definately knows what he does
Solved is the wrong word. Maybe the best move the computer could come up with is more like it.
This whole thing comes down to the validity of the assumption that if Rybka scores 5.12 or more, it is a win with 99.99999999% certainty and that it follows that this happens to be the same certainty for the entire results.
I really have a difficult time with both those assumptions and I want to know how he came up with that value. This is about 1 in 10 billion positions! That means if you sacrifice a queen, or a rook plus a pawn or two that you automatically lose (except once every 10,000,000,000 times.)
I understand that it was a joke but I disagree with your conclusions that almost no big sacrifice works because in theory it is possible that the evaluation of Rybka may give less than 5.12 in case that you sacrifice a queen or a rook and pawns and has a compensation.
My point isn't the exact amount of the material for the sacrifice, it's that short of actual mate programs cannot reliably determine if the position is going to be a win. At least not with anything even close to 99.99999999 percent certainty.
I do not know about evaluation that does it but basically programmers may take a pgn of millions games and analyze every position by static evaluation and by search of 1 second.
After the process we are going to find positions when the static evaluation is more than 5.12 and the better side is not winning based on search and include also positions from games when the better side is not winning based on human knowledge.
Then the programmer may start to work to determine evaluation rules
to force these positions to get less than 5.12(because the side that seems to lose has mate chances or other chances that the evaluation should evaluate).
Such a process sounds logical but it's much more difficult than you think. We have done things very similar to that before where we identify bad evaluation in an attempt to improve it and it can help guide you, but generally whatever you fix breaks something else.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
King's gambit "weakly solved" by Vas. Admit it. This guy definately knows what he does
Solved is the wrong word. Maybe the best move the computer could come up with is more like it.
This whole thing comes down to the validity of the assumption that if Rybka scores 5.12 or more, it is a win with 99.99999999% certainty and that it follows that this happens to be the same certainty for the entire results.
I really have a difficult time with both those assumptions and I want to know how he came up with that value. This is about 1 in 10 billion positions! That means if you sacrifice a queen, or a rook plus a pawn or two that you automatically lose (except once every 10,000,000,000 times.)
I understand that it was a joke but I disagree with your conclusions that almost no big sacrifice works because in theory it is possible that the evaluation of Rybka may give less than 5.12 in case that you sacrifice a queen or a rook and pawns and has a compensation.
My point isn't the exact amount of the material for the sacrifice, it's that short of actual mate programs cannot reliably determine if the position is going to be a win. At least not with anything even close to 99.99999999 percent certainty.
I do not know about evaluation that does it but basically programmers may take a pgn of millions games and analyze every position by static evaluation and by search of 1 second.
After the process we are going to find positions when the static evaluation is more than 5.12 and the better side is not winning based on search and include also positions from games when the better side is not winning based on human knowledge.
Then the programmer may start to work to determine evaluation rules
to force these positions to get less than 5.12(because the side that seems to lose has mate chances or other chances that the evaluation should evaluate).
Such a process sounds logical but it's much more difficult than you think. We have done things very similar to that before where we identify bad evaluation in an attempt to improve it and it can help guide you, but generally whatever you fix breaks something else.
The point is to try to have pruning rule based on sure win.
There are many positions that humans know that some side is winning based on their experience without knowing the number of moves to mate and I think that it is also possible for computers to know it and I do not see the risk assuming the rule is verified to be correct based on analyzing million of games(building a correct rule is a lot of work and the way to try to do it is to start with a rule that is not correct and fix it by having many exceptions(if you start with one million exceptions and reduce the number of exceptions by 50% with every new exception then you need 20 exceptions).
Anyone can say anything they like, but this guy is on another planet. Najdorf was quoted as saying that Bobby (Fischer) preferred to enter the chess heavens alone. And would. I suspect that he would say the exact same thing about Vas as pertains to computer chess.
There is no doubt history will show him as the greatest programmer who ever lived. And it will show him as honest as any programmer alive. I still cannot believe that 4.1, probably a 2.5 year old version, is still in the middle of all these recent new versions.
Can you imagine the publicity- and he is living his dream and can laugh all the way to the bank. Don't get me wrong- we have some of the best programmings mind anywhere- and the difference between him and the rest is vast. No one is even remotely close.
Anyone can say anything they like, but this guy is on another planet. Najdorf was quoted as saying that Bobby (Fischer) preferred to enter the chess heavens alone. And would. I suspect that he would say the exact same thing about Vas as pertains to computer chess.
There is no doubt history will show him as the greatest programmer who ever lived. I still cannot believe that 4.1, probably a 2.5 year old version, is still in the middle of all these recent new versions.
Can you imagine the publicity- and he is living his dream and can laugh all the way to the bank. Don't get me wrong- we have some of the best programmings mind anywhere- and the difference between him and the rest is vast. No one is even remotely close.
gts
So you are buying into this hoax as well? Vas as a programmer is a fraud like the article.
Anyone can say anything they like, but this guy is on another planet. Najdorf was quoted as saying that Bobby (Fischer) preferred to enter the chess heavens alone. And would. I suspect that he would say the exact same thing about Vas as pertains to computer chess.
There is no doubt history will show him as the greatest programmer who ever lived. I still cannot believe that 4.1, probably a 2.5 year old version, is still in the middle of all these recent new versions.
Can you imagine the publicity- and he is living his dream and can laugh all the way to the bank. Don't get me wrong- we have some of the best programmings mind anywhere- and the difference between him and the rest is vast. No one is even remotely close.
gts
So you are buying into this hoax as well? Vas as a programmer is a fraud like the article.
Terry,
You cannot deny that Vas is a good programmer. I don't like what happened any more than you or anyone else and I believe he took some shortcuts that saved him many years, but I don't think denying his ability make sense.
He brought a huge ELO increase to an already strong program. I think what he did was not ethical and it was wrong - but he clearly added a lot to Fruit. He did this primarily with really good engineering and not much imagination though (in my opinion) because he had to be shown the way, until then he was wandering around aimlessly.
George tends to greatly exaggerate - almost to the point of hero worship - but essentially I have to agree that Vas pushed ahead more than anyone else and by a large margin. I don't put him in the genius category but perhaps in the great engineer category. It takes logical thinking and good engineering ability to build a great program.
There are many programmers who seem to be able to work with something that already exists but lack something - I don't know if it's imagination or just laziness, but unless they are inspired by something really good they just flog around like a fish out of water. I think he is one of those.
I have seen this in the workplace many times - people that cannot get started on a project or idea but can run with something that is already developed. They cannot develop a vision but they don't lack any talent either.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
Don wrote:
He brought a huge ELO increase to an already strong program. I think what he did was not ethical and it was wrong - but he clearly added a lot to Fruit. He did this primarily with really good engineering and not much imagination though (in my opinion) because he had to be shown the way, until then he was wandering around aimlessly.
His search was hugely innovative (as reflected by the Ivan/Igor crowd). Whatever his shortfalls, he is a good AND creative chess programmer in my opinion.
Anyone can say anything they like, but this guy is on another planet. Najdorf was quoted as saying that Bobby (Fischer) preferred to enter the chess heavens alone. And would. I suspect that he would say the exact same thing about Vas as pertains to computer chess.
There is no doubt history will show him as the greatest programmer who ever lived. I still cannot believe that 4.1, probably a 2.5 year old version, is still in the middle of all these recent new versions.
Can you imagine the publicity- and he is living his dream and can laugh all the way to the bank. Don't get me wrong- we have some of the best programmings mind anywhere- and the difference between him and the rest is vast. No one is even remotely close.
gts
So you are buying into this hoax as well? Vas as a programmer is a fraud like the article.
Terry,
You cannot deny that Vas is a good programmer. I don't like what happened any more than you or anyone else and I believe he took some shortcuts that saved him many years, but I don't think denying his ability make sense.
He brought a huge ELO increase to an already strong program. I think what he did was not ethical and it was wrong - but he clearly added a lot to Fruit. He did this primarily with really good engineering and not much imagination though (in my opinion) because he had to be shown the way, until then he was wandering around aimlessly.
George tends to greatly exaggerate - almost to the point of hero worship - but essentially I have to agree that Vas pushed ahead more than anyone else and by a large margin. I don't put him in the genius category but perhaps in the great engineer category. It takes logical thinking and good engineering ability to build a great program.
There are many programmers who seem to be able to work with something that already exists but lack something - I don't know if it's imagination or just laziness, but unless they are inspired by something really good they just flog around like a fish out of water. I think he is one of those.
I have seen this in the workplace many times - people that cannot get started on a project or idea but can run with something that is already developed. They cannot develop a vision but they don't lack any talent either.
Don, considering all his statements, why do you give him this credit? It's like saying that the sheikh who owns some great race horses is a great jockey because one of his horses won the derby.
Note that in this case no sheikh was involved at all, as it's a stolen horse as well that won.
