towforce wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:48 am
mwyoung wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:51 am
towforce wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:53 am
For this mini-thought experiment, please assume that chess is drawn (I know it's not proven yet):
* losses strongly correlate with blunders
* the deeper the search, the fewer the number of blunders
Unfortunately, not all engines measure depth in the same way. However maybe we can come up with a "reasonable guess" based on experience.
Another complicating factor: some positions would require a prohibitively deep search to uncover the blunder. In these cases, knowledge would be needed: the eval would need to be able to avoid blunders that search cannot reach. The good news regarding this is that, thanks to NNs, engines are also getting cleverer now, as well as just faster. Again, exactly how "smart" a NN is is difficult to say - but again, we can have a go.
So if chess is drawn (which I believe it is), then the time to perfect chess engines depends on the shape of the 3-dimensional chart that plots blunders against depth and knowledge.
Edit: here's a simplistic view of what the 3d graph might look like (X = depth, Y = knowledge, Z = blunders. Simple expression produces a plane. Drag with the mouse to rotate up/down/left/right to see clearly) - link
This is were some do not understand the problem.
"The deeper the search, the fewer number of blunders."
The problem is the type B search. A type B search is fine playing scrub humans, and other scrub engines. It gives us a great approximation.
The issue is you are making billions of guesses as to what lines to cut to achieve the great search depths we see today. And you only need to be wrong once against perfect play.
And no amount of search in a type B search can ever achieve perfect play.
This is why we see the errors as shown here in this thread. And why Stockfish fails in the examples against perfect play.
You haven't addressed the issue of knowledge which I raised (see above quoted text). You appear to be saying that the 3 dimensional chart should have a long tail on the way to Z=0 (if you're willing to assume that chess is a draw without a blunder). Maybe you could come up with your own mathematical expression and redraw my chart? "A picture is worth a thousand words".
In this post
Albert Silver told us that in top level correspondence chess (TLCC), wins are rare in completed games. Let's consider some candidate reasons why this might be so (my preferred choice is option 1 - that TLCC is the cutting edge, and is almost there in terms of error-free chess).
1. Chess is a draw, a win requires a blunder, and TLCC has almost eliminated blunders
2. Chess is a draw, a win requires a blunder, blunders occur in TLCC, but TLCC suffers from groupthink
, and hence the players fail to find each other's blunders
3. Chess is a win, but TLCC players are not good enough to find the available wins
Which of the above 3 choices do you prefer?
"You haven't addressed the issue of knowledge which I raised"
Yes, I have many times. And in the knowledge standard you are asking for only exist in one form. As I said before Chess is a 100% tactical game...
And I will take option 4. Chess is either a win or a draw, but it does not matter, as humans are a type B searcher, and the computers they using are a type B searcher. Even in correspondence chess, and hence the players fail to find each other's blunders.
"Another complicating factor: some positions would require a prohibitively deep search to uncover the blunder. In these cases, knowledge would be needed: the eval would need to be able to avoid blunders that search cannot reach."
And it is above that tells me you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just putting words together that you think make sense. But are logically flawed. Not only do you not know the rules of chess, but you are clueless as to how a type B search works.
If you had an eval that could "avoid blunders that search cannot reach."
If you had this type of evaluation. Do you know what would not be needed........A search of any kind.
Here is a simple test to see if you have an evaluation that meets your standard. If your STATIC EVALUATION outputs anything other then the 3 true evaluations of chess, and it is not correct 100% of the time. Your evaluation is flawed.
And yes this type of knowledge does exist in only one form, and it is called a table base.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.