Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 14:47:14 12/26/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 1997 at 16:18:07, Don Dailey wrote: >On December 26, 1997 at 14:40:50, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >>On December 26, 1997 at 13:26:09, Don Dailey wrote: >>> >>>I also find this quite distasteful. I think it's becoming a war that >>>they feel they have to fight just to stay on even ground. >> >>As the openingbook maker of Rebel I can only say that I would be >>delighted when we would turn back to normal theory and let the programs >>find out what happens. More and more I am detecting anti-computer lines >>that have nothing to do with playing strength. The only point is to cook >>the opponent, leading to a reaction from that opponent etc. Personally >>I don't like this development at all. The programs are strong enough to >>deal with various openinglines, so let THEM play and not the opening >>experts. >>> >>>It seems to me that the large variety style of book has some advantages >>>and also (maybe) some drawbacks. First of all, it doesn't prevent >>>book cooking, but I believe it will require significantly more effort >>>on the part of the book "cooker." But eventually the cooker will >>>traverse every book end node and will have decided where to vary. >> >>Correct. But don't we all agree that this should come to an end? I fear >>that in a few years the main part of work of the openingbook expert is >>to detect 'cooks' and to repair those lines. I find this disgusting and >>this has NOTHING to do with opening theory, playing strength or >>whatever. >> >>Best regards, Jeroen Noomen > > >Hi Jeroen, > >I completely agree with you in everything you said. I see this as >really being 2 different problems: > > 1) How strong is the engine really? > 2) How good is the opening book? > >Most of want the best program they can get (without considering the >opening book.) We feel a little cheated when we thought we were >buying a strong chess program but we were really buying a strong >opening book database! We want to play our own games, experiment >and try out endings etc, in short we want the best calculating >engine we can get. > >But the "book cookers" have a point of view also. It has always >been a part of Master chess to prepare hard for your opponents. >They are doing nothing that all strong humans do not do. Or are >they? > >In principle I agree with them but NOT in practice. I know they >are only defending themselves against others who do this too and >it's difficult to blast them too much for it. But this is a grey >area thing and you must look at their motives. Are they legitimately >trying to improve their chess program or are they trying to get >as many wins as possible? The two things are different I believe. > >Of course if you ask them, they will say of course they want to >improve the overall chess play. And it's hard to defend this. >But if they had a choice between getting cheap wins and getting >to the top of the list, or actually making the program stronger >but not getting there, which would they choose? I think this >is the real crux of the matter, how genuine is the improvement? >Certainly a well tuned book makes a program legitimately stronger >as it does with humans but a fudged book designed to take unfair >advantage does not. > >This is really a moral issue because they have legitimate arguments >that can not be easily refuted. And also they are in the difficult >position of being forced to compete against others who may also >do this which puts them in a very difficult situation. > >I like the idea of eliminating the "book factor" in some way. >But this is a real difficult problem too since it's certainly >legitimate to tune your book to your programs style. In some >ways the book really is an integral part of your program just >as it is with people. I do not think there is an easy solution >to this although there are some interesting possibilities. > >-- Don I want to defend Mchess. Because, in these arguments over the past few days, I'm reminded of Stalin's dictum from the 1930's. He said that *intentions* were irrelevent. If the *result* of your actions were counter-revolutionary, then you were a counter-revolutionary - and should therefore be shot. No matter that you were trying to fulfill the plan if you made a mistake and failed - you were to be shot. Now Mchess has a learning feature - it tries an opening; if it comes out of the line with a minus, it remembers and tries another move later. if it comes out plus, it remembers and extends the book. This way it builds a book where 'bad' theory gets rejected; and a new Mchess idea gets tried. If the 'new' idea works, it becomes part of the book, Hence the later computer games of mchess where it plays as per some Gm or Im game up to move 38, amd then there's another move, never seen before, or other move series never seen before. So Mchess extends chess knowledge via autoplayer games. They then release with the new book; and the ng's start to skweak. The *effect* is counter-revolutionary, while the *intent* was greater knowledge. You guys argue to shoot Sandro Nechi. Instead you should be applauding him. Chris Whittington
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.