Author: blass uri
Date: 13:03:59 05/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2000 at 13:52:56, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 20, 2000 at 13:16:29, blass uri wrote: > >Something tells me we've had this discussion before. Kinda deja-vuish :o). > >>Boris Galfend's opinion: >>main strenght of chess programs (Fritz, Junior etc) are outside the program >>itself. >> >>I disagree. >>The most simple programs can play well without book. > >Then what's the problem? Let it play without book and see what happens. It could >be interesting. > >>I think that forcing them to play without book is unfair because if they knew >>that they will be forced to play without book they would write their program in >>a different way. > >Then they should start writing their program in another way IMO. You suggest to change the rules and it is not fair. suppose that GM's are told before the tournament that the opening position is different. Part of the preperation of GM's before the tournament will be useless and the players will complain about the new rules that favour part of the players. The idea to give programs to play without opening book has the same problem. It is not fair to decide about a new rule when part of the players(in this case the programmers are the players) are not ready for it. Another problems with the idea is that there is no way to check that there is no hidden opening book. programs can calculate and find the theoretical moves only because they are told to do it. They may give position after the theoretic move bigger scores only because the positions are positions after the theoretic moves and I do not see a practical way to prove it. > >>I believe that it is possible to take advantage of the weakness of Junior by >>getting it out of book early(there are many ways to do it) but unfortunately the >>opponents do not prepare against Junior. > >If everything revolves around getting chess programs "out of book" then it's a >very artificial form of chess. I believe you said that chess programs can make >human players play better chess. I thought about programs to teach humans and not only about programs to play against humans when I said that chess programs can make players play better chess. Programs to play against humans can also help if the human train against them without trying to play anti-computer chess. The special kind of anti-computer chess style >won't do that, since it wouldn't be effective against most top human players. I agree > >>I hope that the opponents will prepare against Junior in the next tournament and >>will force Amir Ban to fix the problem. > >I hope so too. > >>I do not like the fact that Junior does not know important things about the >>opening like not getting out with the queen early but I do not think it is fair >>to force Junior to play weak by creating new conditions that Junior is not ready >>for them. > >Since there were no conditions in the first place, they can't be broken. You're >inventing conditions that doesn't exist on paper, or anything else. There are conditions in the first place. Junior played with opening book in the tournaments when it played against humans. Telling it to play without them is changing the conditions. > >>The programmers develop their program under some assumptions and it is simply >>unfair for them to change these assumptions. > >If it's their own assumptions then it's not unfair. This assumptions are based on all the tournament when programs played against humans. I do not know a single tournament when programs did not have the right to use opening books against humans. Programs use opening books against other programs in important tournaments like the world computer championship and the ssdf games. Uri
This page took 0.02 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.