Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 03:16:01 04/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2001 at 02:01:06, Dann Corbit wrote: >On April 20, 2001 at 01:44:50, Mike S. wrote: > >>On April 20, 2001 at 00:46:11, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>(...) >>>In any case, play against a chess program with takebacks. You will find that >>>you can eventually win unless you are a complete idiot. Now, just record the >>>winning moves and try again. Eventually (through a very simple method like >>>this) you can detect and exploit weaknesses or opening book errors. >>> >>>If anything, it is his strongest point. >> >>I'm afraid it will remain unclear forever (not that I'm too interested :o), if >>the first version, or draft of that contract included an obligation to hand over >>a complete package, including the opening book, or just the engine. IMO it >>would *not* make sense for BGN nor Kramnik to have the opening book, for obvious >>reasons (because they of course want to have a match, no killer book >>preparation), so I think they would have removed that from the contract as soon as it is explained (if necessary...) during negotiations. I think it's unusual to make such details of contracts public. >> >>If I want to take my chance and find parts of a contract I cannot agree with, I >>try to negotiate them away - that's what Amir Ban tried to explain to us. >> >>I do not assume, that BGN or any other organizer would let programs compete >>under different contracts. Whoever suspects this, should first bring evidence >>and talk later. So, do you think DF or DJ would agree to send their openings to >>Kramnik 3 month before the final match, without the right to change anything? >>This doesn't sound quite reasonable to me. >> >>Providing the engine alone isn't such a problem I think, because in this case >>Kramnik could not prepare for a small number of opening lines most likely to >>reach. I do not think he would profit much more from a new engine version, than >>from a current version, during his training. >> >>Furthermore: I'm only guessing and may be wrong, but I don't think that he will >>be able to use the match hardware for preparation. Therefore, he will only get a >>rough impression more or less of what his opponent will be; he'll know much less >>than he is used to know about the GM's he usually plays against. So lets not >>overestimate this preparation issue. > >Let's suppose that they give him a bogus book. I would (personally) just use >whatever book comes with the package. So the "bogus book" idea (proposed by me) >does not really work anyway. >I don't expect (in any case) that the game would follow the same exact line as >he found in practice [though it is not inconceivable]. Rather, that he would >be able to discover some sort of systematic weakness. For instance, blocking >formations might be formed in a certain manner, etc. Yes, I agree totally. For a world Class player like Kramnik , his ability in "reading" opponents would be formidable. He handled Kasparov! for god sake! I'm not sure if it's all due to merely opening preparation, but more to his understanding of Kasparov's style. IMHO the "style" of computers are even more one-dimensional then most top GMs, and Kramnik should have no problem handling such computers. >I still think the "preparation" notion would be a big advantage for the human >GM -- definitely bigger than any of the others. On the other hand, I don't >know if it is unfair or not. The computer could prepare by analyzing each of >Kramnik's games for the entire preparatory time and look for things to exploit >in the other direction. I disagree. If you study games, you can develop a hypthoesis say Player X, overvalues passed pawns or [very simple example].But it's merely a hypthoesis If you have the program, you can see the programs scoring to help support or dispute your hypthoesis. It won't be exact of course, but couldn't Kramnik with the help of some computer experts, figure out the evulation function roughly by feeding the program specific positions ? Of course, I'm not a programmer and I know that it's not so simple, because evalution functions are not linear.. On the other hand studying Kramnik's game couldn't tell you a thing about why he played move X.. Aaron
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.