Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 12:00:13 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 14:39:21, pete wrote: >Let's throw another argument not yet mentioned into the ring : > >The idea about opening books discussed up to now seems too narrow to me . > >It mostly concentrates on opening books created by pure collection of human >masters' games so the idea that this is some sort of cheating seems natural at >first sight . > >Two aspects I think are not taken into account : > >a.) It is _not_ trivial to build a good opening book this way ; you have to >implement learning eventually ; sometimes players play bad openings but still >win etc. ( you won't want those in your book for long ) > >In no way does this make up with the way strong humans build their opening >repertoire , it can only _repeat_ what others _played_ before ; and something >like the REBEL EOC is a non-trivial additional feature that probably took some >time to implement too . > >Human players tend to know and understand far more about their pet lines than >actually played games . I've been trying to build a book for the program Amy for some time, which hasn't been a picnic I can assure you. But the level difficulty in building a good book isn't really an argument. It might be an argument for not using opening books, since a program plays a different kind of chess. Letting it discover its own strength and weaknesses could maybe ensure that the program plays an opening it "understands". >b.) How do you want to deal with the programs who have a hand-build opening book >containing lots of original analysis done by program and program author ( or >mostly independent master player or opening expert member of the team ? ) > >I remember finding lots of completely original analysis in the MChess books >build by Sandro Necchi or in the Hiarcs books ( can't remember the author at the >moment ) ; same probably true for the specially tuned books of Alexander Kure >or Jeroon Noomen . > >Is it really "fair" to decline this ? It seems to me it requires much knowledge >to find opening lines which are on the one hand good and on the other hand suit >your program best as possible. I wouldn't have a problem with original analysis by the author and/or the program itself. However, some might argue that it's impossible to control. From a theoretical point of view it's okay IMO. Best wishes... Mogens
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.