Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 12:50:08 01/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2001 at 14:40:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 31, 2001 at 14:03:09, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On January 31, 2001 at 13:47:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On January 31, 2001 at 11:04:05, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>On January 31, 2001 at 09:29:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 31, 2001 at 08:35:34, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 31, 2001 at 01:00:18, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.computerschach.de/tourn/cad2001/cad2001.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In Gadeques tournament Deep Fritz - Shredder 5 ended 10-10. But 14 games were >>>>>>>won by white! And I thought, that whites advantage is minimal in computer chess. >>>>>>>Have programs killer books or what? >>>>>> >>>>>>As far as Shredder 5.0 is concerned there are no killer variations. The book is >>>>>>made mainly for the human players and with a lot of alternatives to make it play >>>>>>different lines. There are very few very long variations. Of course there are >>>>>>good move against weak ones, but not deep variations. >>>>>>So, it is a sort of compromise to make the program fun to play with. >>>>>>Since we drew 6 games and lost 7, there is still a a lot of room for >>>>>>improvements... >>>>>> >>>>>>Sandro Necchi >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jouni >>>>> >>>>>I'm saving this message to quote later in my life. >>>> >>>>You can dump it. In my games, Shredder 5 didn't play one single killer line. >>>> >>>>Enrique >>> >>> >>>What is your definition of a killer line? >> >>A line that doesn't exist in opening theory and gives decisive advantage to the >>program that plays it. > >I don't want to join the argument, particularly. But my definition is a bit >different. I would call a line a "killer line" if it is chosen specifically >because it leads to a win against a specific opponent. The problem is that we don't know what was in the mind of the book maker, so we must decide whether or not it is a killer line based on other criteria. For instance, A leaves book at move 10, B stays in book until move 28 and then starts computing with a mate evaluation. I have seen this sort of thing. If the line in question doesn't exist in human games you can be sure it's a cooked line. > IE the line everybody >is smashing tiger with, 1. h4 and 2. h5 is a non-theory line that is known to >lead to a win in nearly every game. By your definition that is _also_ a killer >line. Sure. Funny kind of, though. :) > But If I play some games vs some other program, and I discover that if >I play some variation of the Guioco Piano, I will win most of the games against >that program, then I would call _that_ line a killer line as well. I wouldn't. I understand your point, but there is also a "moral" and a "competent" issue here, I think. In this case, the program that loses to a known line of the Giuoco Piano has a lousy book or at least a lousy line it shouldn't play. It's fault, then, because the author of the book should have known better. Crafty may kill it, but it is not a killer line. To me, I mean. >IE I did this very thing against Belle for several years, as I hav mentioned >before. Belle did this against other programs (myself included) for the same >reason. > >I consider either type of opening as a "cooked book"... But in those times books and learners were much more primitive than today. Now there is little justification for a program falling into a line it dislikes, and even less to keep playing it time and again. So how do you identify a killer line. 1 - It's not theory. 2 - Quits book with a winning position. I guess it's debatable, but anyway we know one when we see one. :) Enrique >> >>>A definition of mine could be: "knowing in advance that you make a full >>>point with it against a certain program X1 which is having book X2". >>> >>>I remember 60 moves killer lines in mchess >> >>I don't know how many, but Mchess was full of them. Evals of +2 or more >>immediately after book were not so rare. Sometimes Mchess left book with a mate >>evaluation. :) >> >>In my games, the new books of Deep Fritz, Nimzo 8 and Gandalf are too recent to >>be cooked, but the books of Junior 6 and Gambit are old enough, and still I >>didn't see any killer lines played by Shredder 5. As far as I can tell, we are >>not facing a new "Mchess case". You can download the games and take a look at >>the lines. >> >>Enrique
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.