Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 13:29:16 09/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2004 at 16:16:29, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 13, 2004 at 15:49:16, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On September 13, 2004 at 06:21:04, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On September 13, 2004 at 01:25:25, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On September 12, 2004 at 16:52:48, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 12, 2004 at 16:43:02, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>OK, this is true, but think about this: >>>>>> >>>>>>1. Program A with his own book play at 2650 Elo >>>>>>2. program A without any book (may) play at 2600 Elo >>>>>>3. Program A with another book can play from 2500 to 2650 depending how suiting >>>>>>his style the book is...This is due to the fact that an opening book can make a >>>>>>program play worse than without if bringing the program in positions it does not >>>>>>like. >>>>>> >>>>>>so, how can you know how strong is a program if you let it play with a different >>>>>>book? >>>>> >>>>>I can't, that's why I never use books in testing but instead I used fixed >>>>>positions. >>>> >>>>It is the same as we are talking about positions not suiting the program style. >>>> >>>>I.e.: If a program is not suiting to play the French defence, than it will play >>>>that one bad. >>>>If you force the position it is the same than to get it from a different book. >>> >>>I think that a program should know to play all positions well. >> >>This would be ideal, but so far no one did. > >Yes but the target is to improve the level of the program in all positions. > >>> >>>I prefer not to test the program with book because I believe that if I improve >>>the program in set of positions then it is probably possible to improve it also >>>in games by the right book. >>> >>>I believe that stefan use similiar idea because I rememeber that you said about >>>one new version of shredder that it is stronger but the book does fit the style >>>of previous version so with the opening book that people buy it is nearly the >>>same level. >> >>No, it is not as you say. >> >>When a programmer change the program a lot the book may need to be modified as >>some positions may not be suiting the program anymore and others may be better. > >I agree. >> >>The problem is that to change the program may be relatively quick, but to check >>the new potentiality of the program as well new weaknesses takes a lot of time >>and even more to change the book partially or a lot. > >Yes but my point is that you needed to test that the new version that has new >weaknesses to know that it has bigger potential with the right book and I think >that the way to do it is to see if it can score better in games from positions >that are not in the book(if it can score better in matches from predefined >positions like the nunn match then it probably has better potential with the >right book). > > >> >>The only way one can find out about the new possibility is to analyse the >>program games and see it when it play what is pondering, expected replies, time >>to find the correct move, time to find the correct reply, ability to find >>difficult moves, ability to find the correct defence, ability to use the pieces >>and so on...when the picture is complete, then it is possible to investigate >>specifically. > >This may be useful in order to build a new book but the first problem that you >have is to decide if it is a good idea to spend time on a new book. I think it would be useful to improve the engine too, but in my case I work on the book only. It is like a human player; analysing the games one knows what needs to be improved... > >> >>> >>>I also think that testing program in many positions that are not in the original >>>book can help to build a better book. >> >>No, see above. >> >>If you play soccer and you are not tall and I see that you are not good with the >>head, it is time lost to test new schemes which involve you trying to make goal >>with the head with high coming balls... >> >>I call this optimizing work/time usage... > >Yes but in order to know that you are not tall you need to see it in games and >when you change the evaluation things may be change so the fact that you were >not tall in the past does not mean that you are still not tall. > >I think that it is a waste of time for programmers to analyze games in order to >work on optimizing the book for positions that their program understand better >when some months later it may understand better different positions. Ok, but how long it takes to change the book then? > >It may not be the case for shredder because stefan does not work about the book >but most programmers have not someone who is going to optimize the book for them >and if they need to decide if to spend time about programming or about >book then it is better if they spend time about programming. I agree... > >Based on my experience analyzing games by the programmers can be productive to >show weaknesses of the program but fixing the weaknesses in evaluation or search >is not dependent on book. I never said the opposite...I said that I select the lines based on that... > >Uri Sandro
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.