Newsgroups: comp.ai.games
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!visi.com!news.interactive.net!news.new-york.net!actcom!news
From: bruck@actcom.co.il (Uri Bruck)
Subject: Re: Forcing chess moves
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: p7.haifa2.actcom.co.il
Message-ID: <E68CIF.AGE@actcom.co.il>
Sender: news@actcom.co.il (News)
Reply-To: bruck@actcom.co.il
Organization: ACTCOM - Internet Services in Israel
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
References: <32E768A7.72C9C28@hig.no> <5d77qe$4rj@newsfeed.cs.auc.dk> <32fbef51.1620640@news.inc.net> <5dehuu$c4f$1@nntp-2.io.com> <5dgdu8$svg@chronicle.concentric.net> <5dgicn$ab2@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <5djjd8$17b$1@nntp-1.io.com> <5djmd9$cv1@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <855534834.3779.0@compsurg.demon.co.uk> <5dn94o$e3u@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <Pine.SOL.3.91.970211211541.25160C-100000@aton.abo.fi> <330366DF.12EE@nwlink.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:45:29 GMT
Lines: 43

brucemo <brucemo@nwlink.com> wrote:

>Marcus Alanen wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Eric Dybsand wrote:

>> > Another way to look at it, is to consider the computer program "Deep
>> > Blue" that recently lost to Kasparov in a chess match.  While DB was
>> > consistently making the best move available to it, based on its position
>> > and programming, it still lost to the better player.
>> 
>>         Not knowing how DB evaluates situations, I can merely guess
>>         the reason.
>>         1) If DB counts _all_ possible moves up to N moves away,
>>         the logical inevitability is tat Kasparov thought N+1
>>         moves away and thus was able to make a trap (to put
>>         it in layman's terms) so that on the next move, DB
>>         saw that after N moves (ie N+1 moves the previous move)
>>         it would lose the situation.
>> 
>>         2) If DB doesn't count all possible moves and instead
>>         concentrates on the good-looking ones, Kasparov was
>>         able to make such an odd-looking move or sequence
>>         of moves which DB didn't think of but with a final
>>         position that would favour Kasparov.

>Those games were lost for strategic reasons, not tactical reasons.  It wasn't that 
>Kasparov set tactical traps for the program, rather, the problem was that the 
>program got into positional difficulties and was unable to extricate itself.

This appears to be consistent with a comment Kasparov made after the
match that DB was strong on tactics but weak on strategy.

DB was able to win against a pretty 'obvious' attack by Kasparov, but
not against what appeared to be, at first, a more timid game.

One may see an analogue in a ST:TNG episode where Data won a strategy
game by striving for a different goal (admittedly, this description is
rather abstract).

Uri


