Author: stuart taylor
Date: 18:36:39 11/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2000 at 20:43:37, Peter Berger wrote: >On November 25, 2000 at 19:31:19, stuart taylor wrote: > >>Of course it is always nice to see a great program win at odds of a good opening >>book. >> You can't really judge the strength of programs by ensuring that its opening >>book is always superior to that of its rival. >> (tests should be carried out without opening books too!) >>S.Taylor > >Opening books are an important part of every chessprogram IMHO. The difference >in strength between the top programs is very little and they use similar weapons >; so starting the game with a significant advantage or at least avoiding to >start the game with a big disadvantage will pay off more than it would between >very different opponents ( like a comp and a human ) . Also there seem to be few >really independent strong novelties never published before ( as the bookcooks >are not of the same playing strength as the strong human masters who publish >their analysis so its somehow a fight with similar sources ) . > >I agree that "Major Upset!!" is a little too much :-)) > >But a nice example for my point of view is a recent match of Bringer 1.8 beta >against Gambit Tiger ; Bringer 550Mhz , GT 300Mhz ; Game in 1 hour , Gambit used >the GUI book : the match ended 7-7 . Changing the book to "Use Engine books " ( >the _real_ Tiger book ) resulted in better scores for Gambit . > >It would be nice if chessprograms excelled in opening play just by their >superior understanding and calculation but after all : even human GM's don't . I >just fear that some day _all_ opening books will be written by Jeroon Noomen and >Alex Kure :-) . Even now a match Fritz-Nimzo or Century-Tiger already sometimes >feels like an internal book test . > >pete What do most people want chess programs for? to test their memory of openings? I would think that if anyone wanted to challenge a computer, he would be more interested in testing his chess playing abilities. I thought that massive memorization of opening theory was only worthwhile for a proffesional chess player who earns his living through playing chess, and only such a person will ever be able to challenge opening textbooks. But for the non-proffessional who is nevertheless brilliant at chess, it would be enough to test his skill and technique. And of course he wants a program which is as near as possible to a strong GM, and so far, such a program was not yet available, as alot of the computer strength is only cold bloodied tactics etc. but not even a true true test of the humans understanding, even if the computer may win. But you can't really say that cold bloodied tactics is nothing to do with skill. But Openings IS nothing to do with skill. And if people want a chess program for analysis, then opening books is not going to get them very far either! It might happen that you will buy a new program which is a little weaker than the one you have, only because it is stronger. But in fact it is not stronger, but weaker, just alot of luck (in tests, this year, at any rate) due to its better opening book. Emotionally speaking, to me, it's like waiting a whole year in suspense, when really there are much more important things to do in life, and at the end of the year-breathlesly at last, pay for a great new upgrade which surely understands things much deeper, and it turns out to be a balloon filled with hot air, having lost quality of life for a year, dreaming about a dream program, and now lost money in purchasing it (if the main improvement in playing results, is its opening book). I really don't understand why others don't agree with me. If you like it for its results in championships, you don't need to buy it. Just read the latest chess magazine! S.Taylor
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.