Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Qualifier to my previous statement

Author: KarinsDad

Date: 12:48:15 01/29/99

Go up one level in this thread


On January 29, 1999 at 14:39:16, Matt Frank wrote:

>On January 29, 1999 at 14:00:02, KarinsDad wrote:
>
>>By everything, I also meant opening books and tablebases. I personally do not
>>feel that a program is stronger just because someone improved it's opening book.
>>To me, that is like saying the program is stronger because someone put it on
>>faster hardware.
>>
>>To do a true test of strength vs. strength, you have to have a controlled
>>environment and minimize only one variable, i.e. the engine.
>>
>>KarinsDad
>
>That's a peculiar statement. Do you mean to say that if we could somehow disable
>Kasparov's opeing theory knowledge it would be a better test of him vs. me, and
>our respective chess engines (i.e., brains). The way I see this you are imposing
>a requirement that would require enourmous dilution in all of the commercial
>software over the last 20 years.
>
>Matt Frank

Which statement was peculiar?

The topic is: How can we find out if programs (not humans) have been getting
better? Of course, someone could write a better opening book and a better
tablebase. No question about it. And yes, this does happen with the commercial
programs.

But if you want to compare engine strength versus engine strength to determine
if the program got better and not compare whether some database has better data
in it, then you should use the same databases.

If I could take a 1200 rated playing program and give it an opening database of
all moves out to 100 moves for each side (a very large database on the magnitude
of 10^320 positions) and a tablebase which can handle all positions with 12
pieces on a side (another extremely large database which I cannot even guess how
to calculate), then I would have a program that would never lose to Deep Blue
since it would never use it's search engine for anything other than looking up
data out of databases.

Would CM6000 be stronger than CM5000 with a stronger opening database? Most
likely. Is it a fair test to compare CM5000 with CM6000 with them both using the
same opening database? Of course. That's the point. If CM6000 has an inferior
engine to CM5000, but had a much more superior opening book, it could still win
games due to being in a superior position out of the opening.

The difference between humans and programs is that the opening book of a human
is an integral part of him whereas this is not the case with a program. A
program can use any opening book (in the appropriate format) or none at all. You
cannot compare the two.

KarinsDad



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.