Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 05:33:39 09/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2004 at 01:56:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On September 24, 2004 at 13:05:52, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On September 24, 2004 at 12:09:00, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>>On September 23, 2004 at 13:31:55, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On September 23, 2004 at 01:44:08, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 23, 2004 at 01:31:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 22, 2004 at 06:58:33, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 22, 2004 at 05:56:02, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It is not a benefit for a weak engine as it will also probably play weak moves >>>>>>>>in the middlegame which will be properly exploited by the stronger engine. Dont >>>>>>>>u think so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>it's not the issue whether a strong engine will beat a weak engine. that is so >>>>>>>by definition :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>the question is: take 2 engines of approximately equal playing strength, give >>>>>>>one of them a good book, and look what happens in a match. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>i believe that for 2 weak engines the difference will be larger in the match >>>>>>>result than for 2 strong engines. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>now we only need somebody to test this hypothesis :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>cheers >>>>>>> martin >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>I made very many tests and I can make statements on this matter: >>>>>> >>>>>>1. A program stronger 150 points than another will win nearly all games no >>>>>>matter how bad it comes out from the openings. >>>>>>2. The stronger the program is the most important the book is. Of course weak >>>>>>lines should be checked and removed to avoid loosing positions. >>>>>>3. The weaker the program is the less the book is important. The reason is that >>>>>>it will find very many positions where it does not know how to play them. >>>>>> >>>>>>P.N. Do not take the Shredder - Hydra example to state the opposite, because I >>>>>>knew we had some weak lines in the book, but for personal reasons could not work >>>>>>on them. >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course anybody can state the opposite, but my statements are supported by >>>>>>thousand of games and more than 100 engines/prototype testing at all level and >>>>>>with very many different harware. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have no time and williness to do deeper into these matters, so it is up to you >>>>>>to believe me or not. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sandro >>>>> >>>>>At the very weak level books are not important because the program that get >>>>>better position cannot use it. >>>>> >>>>>At the very high level books are also not important because the program can find >>>>>better moves by itself. >>>> >>>>No, this is today totally wrong in at least 95% cases. >>>> >>>>It depends on the positions, but in some positions they should search at 64/108 >>>>to be able to do it and I do not think any chess program is able to reach those >>>>depths now. >>>> >>>>I have made several tests running fast harware for more than one day and the >>>>moves and the evaluation they got was poor compared to real ones. >>> >>>Depends on what "real ones" means. Humans also make mistakes. >> >>Yes, but I was referring to deep analysis of a position, not games. Some times >>deep analysis takes days, months or even longer...otherwise is not deep...:-) > >An example: > >after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 can computers answer >these questions: > >1. Is this the best line for white? >2. Is 2...d6 best move for black? >3. Is this line best line for black? It's true that a human, armed with thousands of games and thousands of hours of analysis of these basic positions, can answer these three questions much better than any engine. Further, a human can be aware of the strengths of the engine and tailor the choice appropriately. >4. What is white best move at move 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, >18, 19 and 20? As you get deeper and deeper into the opening, the theoretical moves start to get weaker and weaker. Let me give an example from a game I played a few months ago: Rajlich-Haba, Bundesliga, Erfurt 3.23.04 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. c5 Be7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. Na4 Nfd7 11. h4 h6 12. Rh3 [D] rnbq1rk1/3nbpp1/1p2p2p/p1Pp4/NP1P3P/3B1N1R/P4PP1/R1BQK3 b Q - 0 12 This position was supposed to be good for white. IIRC some sources give cryptic stuff like "+/- (Botvinnik)". Problem is - nobody had really checked it - until my opponent. In fact black is winning here: 12. .. e5! 13. Bxh6 Bf6 14. Rg3 e4 15. Ng5 exd3 16. Qh5 g6 and white's fun is over. This is just one blatant example, there are thousands of others. It's pretty obvious that theory has lots of holes. The question is: does it have more holes than the moves of a top engine running on top hardware at tournament time controls? In my opinion, yes - once you leave the territory where dozens of games have been played. Vas >5. What are the best reply for black on those moves and the white best line? >6. How deep should a chess program need to search to give these answers? > >Uri, do you really think a chess program can give better answers (moves) than a >strong human player? > >Do you want a more complicated example? > >Sandro >>> >>>I'd guess that a normal human can capably assist a top engine in 20% or so of >>>all positions. >> >>Today situation is that the computers do better in some specific things and >>worse in other. Knowing this well I know how much I can rely on them and their >>analysis. >> >>Sandro >>> >>>Vas >>> >>>> >>>>Maybe what you state will be true in 20 years from now, but not before. >>>>> >>>>>I think that books becomes more important when the level become stronger but >>>>>later becomes less important when the level become stronger and the only >>>>>question is if the top programs got the level when it starts to become less >>>>>important or still did not get that level. >>>> >>>>No, if the book will keep up with theory evolution and will be "adjusted" to the >>>>new strength level... >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>>>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.