Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:16:54 08/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2000 at 12:06:57, Christian Pike wrote: >On August 24, 2000 at 11:36:56, Gordon Rattray wrote: > >>So, do you think that endgame table bases should be removed too? Where do you >>draw the line? Do we only have programs that figure everything out for >>themselves except for the rules of chess? Human chess players don't figure >>everything out for themselves - we use the advice of others in the opening as >>well as other phases of the game. It is up to us to decide whether to use >>advice as it may be good or bad, that's just part of the challenge of chess so >>it should not be removed. > >the problem is that the engine cannot decide which opening to chose, but the >programmer does, or his advisor. >IMO there should be an algorithm that the engine can decide too. >it can take an advise from book and correlate this advise with its own >ideas about the positio. > > > >>It is not russian roulette. Programmers have control over the book that their >>program uses. The moves are not random. > >but for the engine the moves are random. and the engine has to play the game. > >>Do you honestly believe that a program can win a "strong" championship by having >>a really good opening book but play badly afterwards. I very much doubt it. > >yes - i have experienced in many tournaments that the opening decides much. >i have seen programs, very strong programs lose because of opening >bugs they were not in charge but the advisor/programmer before the game. >strong programs giving away the chance to win the title because of dump >opening decisions. It is possible that the second or the third best engine will win because of better opening preperations but there is no chance that a real weak program is going to win the tournament because of opening book. The opening is only one part of the game. > >i can show you examples. but in the moment i am busy - like all - watching >the games. but it is IMO a pity that the engines cannot decide themselves. > >>If they do, then they have weaknesses in their ability to play chess so they >>deserve to lose. > >nonsense IMO. >choose an opening YOU decide, throw the opponent out of book. >but have the initiative about the opening-decision. >not follow some stupid openings humans have played, there is no reason >to do so. If the programmers tell their programs to follow stupid lines that humans played then their program deserves to lose. I do not see a reason to do it. Uri
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.