Author: Mike S.
Date: 05:45:49 01/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2004 at 06:30:02, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >On January 27, 2004 at 16:52:59, Mike S. wrote: > >>[...] >>You always argue like engines would be complete unable to play openings >>themselves. > >That is not at all true. I state that using huge libraries during the phase of >opening is contraproductive to gain improvements in detail evaluating functions, >which could then better supply engines in the beginnings of chess games. I basically agree to this point, or at least partially. It's potentiallly (but not necessarily) counterproductive. I had the impression that you were underestimating the engine's strength in the opening they have reached already anyway, in general (or at least the medium to top engines). While the match against Rogozenko (~2520 Elo) seems to indicate that engines (in this case Tiger 15) are more than competitive even in Shuffle positions - and therefore I'd guess, even more in positions arising from the classical starting position they are better tuned for - this indeed doesn't mean that the couldn't be improved further for that phase of the game. The usual opening libraries will undoubtely cause, that the focuss of engine improvements isn't so much at the (early to mid) opening. OTOH, I'd like to remind that certain "basic abilities and knowledge of opening principles" are crucial for engines, and therefore most also have that, because ohterwise GMs or even other engines prepared for that, could more or less easily gain a big advantage by playing non-theory opening moves throwing the opponent engine "out of the book." Since this doesn't work obviously, I thought you're statements would contradict with the current standard of engine's own openings strength. My main concern was, that newbies get a completely wrong impression of engine's own opening strength, which are IMO much better than one might think when reading your statements about it. They really sounded (to me) as if engines would be opening idiots without a book, which they aren't (maybe that is only my receiption, not a general one, of what you wrote about it). >>[...] >>So why expect from chess engines, >>that they find all this correctly in 3 minutes?? :-)) > >You are describing an ultamitive goal. If you deny, that it could be reached >completely, why also skipping any possible progress in programming? I agree again. Of course any progress in any phase of the game is desireable. I thought our different views or opinions would be about the opening abilities already reached by the engines, only. Maybe we cannot disagree nor agree :-) because we are talking about different things (I meant the quality of the status quo, and you meant the chances for further progress). (I think it's not yet time for the "limitation" idea, if it makes sense at all, but that's another topic IMO. At least not as long these Man vs. Machine matches are drawn, but not lost by the human top players still.) Regards, M.Scheidl
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.