Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 14:17:19 03/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 31, 2000 at 12:53:43, Stephen Ham wrote:
>Dear Readers,
>
>I know many of you are actively following my ongoing match games versus Fritz 6a
>and Nimzo 7.32. For those of you not familiar with the event, please visit:
>
>http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/index.htm
>
>Anyway, a frequent poster here (name is withheld) wrote to Mr. Campbell stating
>that since the chess engines are displaying their top 3 choices, they are being
>weakened "a lot". No explanation was given for that claim.
>
>Would somebody here please provide a detailed explanation regarding whether this
>claim is correct and why?
>
The engines are certainly weakened. I do not know if it is "a lot" (how
much is "a lot", after all?).
It is because the engines will take longer to reach certain search
depth. Searching one ply deeper requires a lot of extra work, and some people
believe that it translates in a lot of extra strength.
>The chess engines are on settings recommended by ChessBase USA as their optimal
>settings for this event.
Were Frans and Chrilly consulted? But if ChessBase USA recommended these
settings, then the operator can not be blamed.
>My extremly limited understanding is that displaying
>the top 3 choices does indeed affect the chess engines, but it causes them to
>spend more time on what it believes to be the 3 best moves.
But less time on what it believes to be the best move (which is after
all what is needed to play).
>As such, this sounds
>like an enhancement to me.
Not a playing strength enhancement to be sure.
>Given that the chess engines are allowed about 24
>hours calculation time on weekdays and are searching to 16-18 ply, I can't
>imagine that this weakens them in any way.
>
Some people believe that search depth is linearly related to rating. It
certainly makes sense, as the tree grows exponentially with the depth.
>Please advise. We sincerely want the chess engines to play at peak performance.
We do not know exactly which settings will be stronger at that time
control. Testing for that is very time consuming, and testing in real games is
the only valid way to measure playing strength.
>I also think we all learn more about computers in Correspondence Chess when we
>can see their 2-3 choices and understand what it caclculates and DOESN'T
>calculate in certain positions.
Here I fully agree. But what is the main goal of the experiment? What
has higher priority: playing strength or gaining insight about the engines?
>Often, it seems they make the correct choices
>for the wrong reasons.
>
That happens with any time control.
>Since I am the computer's opponent, I don't have access to the chess engine
>manuals where this may be explained. Thanks in advance for any information you
>can provide.
>
>Stephen Ham
José.
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.