Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 20:22:10 07/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2000 at 22:03:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 06, 2000 at 19:41:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>this is a post i just did at crafty list after a long number of mails about >>a project called CAP which people tend to believe they can use it for >>creating their openingsbook. Some warnings are on their place, when you >>want to let such a book compete with commercial books. >> >>I first showed that CAP goes completely wrong already quite soon in opening. >>Like 1.d4,d5 2.c4,e5 3.dxe5 there best move is d4 all other moves you can >>go home and rest but first resign the game. > >This is a bogus title for a thread. CAP isn't right in all cases. Neither >is "most popular move". Nor "move suggested by Kasparov (or Anand or Karpov >or any other GM)". > >CAP data _is_ good and reliable. You simply have to use it as one of several cap data is NOT reliable. You lose any tournament using CAP data. CAP data importance is completely insignificant to other factors when talking about computer-computer games. >decision-making ideas. Not _the_ decision making idea. Weighted with other NO it's not decisive material at all, at most satisfying a curiosity from us humans: "does the prog understands the position by evaluating it well?". >things like frequency, learning, even simple positional evaluation, CAP data >can contribute to a better move choice. Used by itself, it can also contribute >to a bad choice. As can even a top GM's suggestion(s). I challenge you to just use CAP data and statistical information without learning at the internet chess server and remove your formula! Let's see what gets left of you then, even against humans who make blunders! Easy to get an account from icc dudes for that hopefully. Then use an account ONLY using cap data also and one ONLY using statistical information. Don't run it for a few days, but a considerable amount of weeks, as rating drops occur not directly against humans. They need a couple of weeks to adjust. >If you don't want to use the data, don't. But I don't see any reason to >suggest that others should not try it. They might have a better idea than >you do (or than I do). I'm basically saying that making a book without human interference is simply impossible. You can adjust a program by playing a lot of games and using a special learn file for it. We're talking here about the initial move choice based upon only statistical information from games. I clearly see that i've lost important games BECAUSE i only used statistical information and the happiness of my program in positions as a weighting factor. So i see no other way as to work hard and by hand on a book. >Dismissing something just because you don't see (yet) how to use it is not >a good way to make progress. Had I dismissed bitmaps so quickly, I would have >missed something that has turned out to be very interesting and useful. I see clear proof. I give game examples which i lost. How can i be more realistic? I'm not busy with a theoretical decision whether CAP influences me 0 or 0.01 or 0.1 or 1%. I'm describing what the main effort should be. That's clearly a hand made book. I lost titlegames because of it! >IMHO... idem > > > > >>-------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>In my previous examples you might argue that the positions are of >>material inequality. But now please check cap scores for the next >>opening: >> >>1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bb5,a6 4.Ba4,Nf6 5.O-O,b5 >> >>I didn't check yet. I just give a mainline in the Spanish here. >> >>I remember that at world championships Stefan-Meyer >>Kahlen fiddled at my laptop together with Rudolf Huber and Thorsten Czub >>with DIEP. Their conclusion was that DIEP was way better for CAP project >>as crafty, but i didn't understand what they meant, as i had never >>taken CAP seriously. Now i realize still some people are busy with >>it. I'll explain in this posts why i find a single computer analysis >>of a line not very smart to base a book upon. >> >>Now keep into mind that all busts of my book at tournaments were busts >>where CAP would have gone wrong sooner in the opening or at the same >>point. >> >>However, the problem is more complex than just that >>it's also that programs are quite strong in winning games compared to >>their real strength. >> >>As Bob already indicated if a line A is played a million times and >>a line B only a 100 times, then obviously you take line A, yet also that >>is not entirely true. Line A might be refuted or a move of the thumb also. >> >>When starting with the first: making your move based upon the outcome of >>a few minutes of search of a program: >>Programs are not near the human >>strength, but they just don't blunder, so in contradiction to me >>computers don't have a weak point, but when there is no tactics in >>a position then a computer is not a part of my strength. Remember i'm >>just 2255 FIDE, getting to 2400 soon perhaps and hoping to get my IM >>within a couple of years, but i'm not near the incredible brilliant level >>of the 2600+ players, who also have the habit to find new moves behind the >>tournament board and the majority of new moves doesn't get found at home >>as most people do you want to believe. Basically Kasparov does and a few >>correspondence players do. >> >>Shredder who clearly is world >>champion past few years, i can't say that i'm very impressed about how it >>positionally plays, but it just doesn't lose quick. Shredder is extremely >>bad short after opening. Classical preprocessor problem. If we look at >>games from the world championships like the Shredder-Ferret tie then we >>clearly see already short after opening the Rfe1 manoeuvre where Shredder >>puts itself in a pin, something no human would ever do. Yet it's not >>tactical losing directly. To lose black must have a strategic plan which it >>developed rather late (perhaps too late). So obviously all programs >>suffer from not having the same human insight. But let's continue to >>describe how i feel about my book versus CAP. >> >>Considering the more or less automatic way in which i constructed >>book about a year ago short after the world champs, >>let's see where my program went wrong in tournaments. >> >>DIEP's main book, and numerous crafty clone books have been constructed, >>in an automatic way based upon the number of games played. Added to that >>i have a small hand tailored book which was really small, so always >>a transition from tournament book to automatic generated book takes place. >>I'm not happy about that transition. Not at all, see below why. >> >>The past 8 months: >> >> - dutch open diep played 4 games against commercial programs, >> - chesstiger >> - the king >> - quest >> - nimzo >> >> Let's chronologically handle this. Consider that diep has a >> very small tournament book, not worth mentionning. These programs >> have thousands of hand made book moves. Not generated automatically >> whatsoever. >> >> - against chesstiger diep gets completely busted out of book >> directly after book a pawn goes even and a lost position gets to >> board with a pawn less. I still don't understand how DIEP managed >> to draw that. that's not important here. important is to realize >> i get completely lost out of book against a chess program and that >> because of that the opponent can no longer lose, despite incredible >> pathetic strategically and especially positoinal play caused by >> preprocessing of Tiger. How can you draw a game with a pawn >> up in that position? Incredible! But still... ...a good job in the >> opening and it could no longer lose! >> - against The King, there The King gets great play after opening, >> not exactly huge advantage, but simply easy play, >> only because of chosing the wrong plan and the fact that i ran >> at a quad saves diep's ass to an equal position which later >> diep manages to convert to a pawn more in endgame which still remains >> a draw. So good tactics was enough to keep it a draw. Also the fact >> that endgame of both programs wasn't at high level kept it a draw, >> as any human would have seen that just winning the pawn wasn't important >> where diep just got that pawn and only realized years later it was a >> draw. >> - against Nimzo diep gets a mainline at board. Suddenly Nimzo plays >> a different move somewhere. The move is bad, but the automatically >> generated book completely mistakes there. I had 20 games in book. >> 19 games or so a3 was played with a reasonably good chance for winning >> with that line, according to statistics. Just 1 game a different move >> was played, which got ignored of course 1 game is not convincing. 19 >> games are however. >> So diep plays a3 and is already having a lost position, a3 is a good >> answer to the mainline move, but a side line move was played, lots of >> 2000+ players probably have made the same mistake. 19 to be exact. >> Still theoretical >> humans consider that as still a bit unclear as white has tactical >> pressure on black. Of course computer doesn't fall for the pressure >> so we can consider it as a dead lost position. The bad thing is >> that both programs didn't see that black was won, only when it was >> far too late both programs realized how dead lost it was for white. >> Afterwards i can consider that as a chanceless loss of an automatically >> generated book. So this was seemingly a good game from Nimzo, as >> outsiders might say : "from a negative score of -1.0 it fought its >> way back", but fact is that programs always underestimate positions >> with 2 passed pawns that start running. Only when they get to 6th row >> programs realize suddenly how strong they are. >> - against Quest was even more horrible. Diep plays a move (b4??) which >> was played in theory a lot by grandmasters, however nowadays line is >> completely refuted. It's a ++-- case. +10.0 out of book for Quest. >> >> Against Quest also CAP data would not have saved DIEP's ass. So >> i would not have won this tournament even with CAP data which makes >> CAP data useless. Only way to do better against these programs next year >> is to have an up to date book. >> >> It's obvious that Nimzo book is especially made to do well against >> automatically generated books. Note that Nimzo book is the same as fritz6 >> book. Nimzo 7.32 book is only a bit newer than that i can assume. >> >>Now you convinced that making a hand made book is necessary? >> >>Horror strikes at spanish champs for DIEP at christmas 99. >> >>Diep had won all games at Spain champ. Tiger had lost one. >>Just a draw was enough to win the title for DIEP. >> >>I had prepared a line at home to play against Tiger both with white >>and black. I shipped >>before the champs that book to Spain, and hoped this line would get >>on the board. >> >>EXACTLY the line came on the board. However let's talk about the >>openingsbook line. I never have played that opening, i just had written >>down the line from a book, i had not even seen a board when preparing >>that line, book said += in that position. >> >>However DIEP lost it chanceless against Tiger! >> >>Note that Tiger played >>that game quite well, but still, i clearly did a bad job in the >>openings book, because what happened? >> >>Post mortem analysis showed that my openingsbook was simply 15 years too old. >>My book was out of 1984. Sincethen grandmasters concluded that this line >>though tactical giving much pressure at black (tigers side) objectively >>seen the line is losing for white, so someone who doesn't give away >>pieces (for example computers or grandmasters) will win it with black >>in a chanceless way. In new theory books the side line >>played by DIEP is not even considered and given a big questionmark in >>the notes. >> >>So making hand tailored books is nowadays not even enough. >>No what you need is a book at the same level as i play chess myself, >>and i'm tactical not as near as good as my program! >> >>I'm positionally/strategically way above it, but ones or twice a game >>i make a big blunder. Usually 1 blunder a game (if i lose the game). >> >>Computer never makes big blunders, only bad moves in openings or >>strategic mistake somewhere. That's about it. >> >>So basically you not only need hand tailored book, but also refuted lines >>you need to leave out of book and you need to take into account that >>a program just needs an OBJECTIVE correct position. Too many grandmaster >>take into account that mankind makes tactical mistakes. So also the >>GM analyzes should be taken with a bit of salt. >> >>Obviously Nimzo 7.32 book is taking this all into account. >> >>Have you ever seen a book loss of Nimzo, or from Fritz at the different >>championships? >> >>No? you haven't? How comes, they used CAP? I'm sure they didn't. >>It's all based upon human analyzes and theorem, interpreted by a strong >>playing human and based upon thousands of auto232 games and all together >>it's years of work. >> >>So where you still need to realize that you need a handtailored book, >>i'm already a step further and i recently bought the latest theory books >>in order to keep up to date with the theory, because hand tailored books >>also lose if you have outdated theory. >> >>This where those automatically generated books already don't take the >>date of games into account. If they would, they still depend upon >>the AVERAGE move played. I can assure you: the average move in this >>world is a 1500 rated move. Programs are stronger as 1500. But programs >>are in opening not as strong as strong GMs are. They're not even >>near FM level in opening. >> >>Now hand tailored books are at least GM level books, So programs searching >>for openingsbook moves gotta be way less than that. >> >>To order books in magnitude of strength >> A - CAPdata/automatically generated books >> >> <big gap> >> >> B - hand tailored books based upon GM commentary >> >> C - hand tailored books taken into account latest theory >> D - hand tailored books taken into account latest theory and >> objective judgement of a position >> E - same as D but now with years of testing and book updating >> and especially taking into account how a program reacts >> on the booklines based upon real games as played by thousands >> at home at tournament level (so not blitz level). >> >>I'm trying to make the step from A with a bit of B >>directly to C, and i'm still one step behind some of >>the real great books. >> >>But the CAP data is still at A without a chance that its >>holy believers will ever get to B, because seemingly they've >>got nothing to do. >> >>Vincent Diepeveen >>diep@xs4all.nl >> >>---- >>to unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@cis.uab.edu. In the body of >>the email, enter "unsubscribe crafty-list" (without the quotes).
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.