Chess World.net presents: Instructive discussion: An issue with using engines: "Mainline Syndrome!"

Play online turn-based chess at http://www.chessworld.net

Chess World.net presents: Instructive discussion: An issue with using engines: "Mainline Syndrome!"

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• chess
• letsplaychess.com
• chessworld.net
• engine
• issue
• hypothesis
• brute
• force
• incremental
• depth
• weakness

[JohnnySkillish]

I also believe that you're kind of overstating the obvious here KC, no offense. Anyone and everyone not only playing chess, but even further, using the engine to analyze games is certainly aware of the fact that what would normally be considered even brilliant by human standards, is most often brushed away by the likes of Rybka and others in favor of the 1,855,907th Var. If the sole point is to say, make sure you balance your play and realize that your opponents are only human too, then kudos.

[kingscrusher]

There is actually a deeper aspect about the lack of "internal quality" focus, which I will try and expand on in another video part to this. Without such a focus, it is as if we are just accepting the results of engines without question.

[JohnnySkillish]

Thanks for the reply KC. I agree that it;s very difficult NOT to just accept a Rybka-like response, after all, it IS A COMPUTER, RIGHT?! Tongue-in-cheek. I'll have to watch your second installment here and respond...

[kingscrusher]

@JohnnySkillish Yes but it is like accepting an artefact of "external quality" without having access to its "internal quality". You don't understand that artefact -it is just a black box. So despite being technically great, it is also unevolvable, unexplainable, etc.

[fateola]

I think you're raising a great point here, although the presentation wasn't all that polished.

[JohnnySkillish]

Great analogy. I did watch the second installment, which was fascinating once again. I would like to read your response to it my post on that page if you are so inclined. And anyone else's too for that matter. Thanks again! JS

[zaychenok]

I found it a bit ironic that at depth 18 vs depth 17 black suddenly has to give up the rook on a8. And also Rybka doesn't give anything else to explain why. Black box =/

[ytkonsta]

Thanks KC, very interesting video (as are your other ones) and your point about the mainline syndrome is interesting. My view on it is that yes, computers are better than humans at chess but if we start taking the computer's suggestion as the "correct" move, then our thinking will become misguided because we can't explain where this move comes from. Humans do have the ability to be innovative and create and refute hypotheses, but chess is a closed enough system to yield to brute-force search.

[QuakePhil]

@bound4h

I think the point here is that eng analysis is more suited to analyzing games between engines. Engines miss the human aspect of analysis, and only best moves found by humans take this account into consideration.

So, the best move against an engine is not necessarily the best move against a human.

But I agree, the engine (these days) will be ultimately more correct even with subtle things like order of moves in a sequence. Engines are stronger ultimately than humans.

[bound4h]

Yes, you can choose line 4, but if your opponent plays the "best" moves following your moves, you will be in that much less of a position.

My comments assume that the opponent plays the "best" moves. Otherwise, line 5 could be beat a typical IM, etc.

[bound4h]

i think its cheesy that you backed off engine analysis because of a GM's comments. An engine's algorithm finds the quickest a most effective way to 1) gain piece advantage, and 2) mate the opponent. To assume that you can take the second line as opposed to the main line and not be a Mainline Servant and still be in a better position is silly. The mainline is just that, the main line of moves that will accomplish the above to goals the quickest. running out room to type...

[intindse]

you've heard it here first folks!