Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Next comp vs humans, comp should not use book

Author: Richard Pijl

Date: 06:37:26 10/13/04

Go up one level in this thread


On October 13, 2004 at 09:14:56, Richard Pijl wrote:

>On October 13, 2004 at 09:07:31, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:
>
>>On October 13, 2004 at 08:56:50, Richard Pijl wrote:
>>
>>>The Baron played a 2-game match of Fischer Random chess against Levon Aronian
>>>this year. Obviously no opening book was used, and on request of the
>>>organization the Baron also played without endgame database access. Both games
>>>ended in a draw. The engine was at never in trouble. You can find the games at
>>>http://www.chesstigers.de/alte_daten/chesstigers_alt/Tigers/cc/2004/e/default.htm
>>>As a preparation the Baron played in a simultaneous event against our
>>>club-champion. I removed the opening book access during that game. Due to the
>>>unusual setup in the opening phase the human quickly lost track of the game and
>>>resigned in 11 moves. Btw, this game was played _before_ I improved the piece
>>>development evaluation in the Baron.
>>
>>Hi Richard,
>>
>>you are doing well! One of the intentions to my "fair" computerchess approach
>>is that the programmers will be encouraged to improve their programs during the
>>opening phase. Today programs only very rarely have the chance to show their
>>abilities here, because of being overruled by the holy cow of opening library
>>usage. Congratulation to your improved evaluation, its the right direction!
>
>It's simply a must-have when writing an FRC capable engine. There are no opening
>books (yet).
>And of course, when the opponent of the engine manages to find a hole in your
>book, you should be able to survive on your own!
>Adding endgame knowledge that is also covered by tablebases in the evaluation
>function is done for another reason. During quiescense search no access to the
>tablebases is possible as it slows the engine down too much. But the decision to
>take the road to trading down to an endgame is often based on the knowledge in
>the evaluation function.
>
>So I'm not at all against using methods like an opening book or endgame table
>bases as they will help increasing the overall playing strength of the computer.
>But an engine should suffer too much when it doesn't have access to them!

Should _not_ suffer too much of course
>
>Richard.
>
>>Regards, Reinhard.
>>
>>>NN - The Baron 1.3.1 beta 4
>>>1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Bf5 3.Bg2 e6 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 Bc5 6.Nbd2 O-O 7. Re1? Bxf2 8.Kh1 Bxe1
>>>9.Qxe1 Nc6 10.e4 Nb4 11.Qd1? dxe4 0-1



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.