Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:40:35 02/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2001 at 22:27:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 31, 2001 at 15:50:08, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>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. > > >That I would agree with. That is why I generally avoid the "cooked book" >threads. Part of the definition of "cooking" is based on the word "intent". >And without a good 1-800-psychic connection to help, I can't figure out the >"intent" of someone that made a book. Of course, I _told_ you I chose a >well-known guico variant to play against Belle. It was a perfectly well-known >variation right out of MCO10 in fact. But my intent was to win a pawn and >keep it. > > > >> >>> 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. > >THe issue isn't avoiding the killer the _second_ time. I believe I can >do that with 100% reliability today. The intent is to avoid it the _first_ >time because the other programmer found the hole but has never played it against >me in public prior to "the game"... > > > > >> >>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. :) > > >Think about the tiger game. The position is _not_ won out of book by >any stretch. White is very probably lost after playing h4 and h5, in >fact, as he has totally deserted the center. And if black castles >queen-side, white's advanced (and weakened) pawns are just targets and >nothing else. The line is based on the fact that tiger will always castle >into that pawn storm. IE the famous "stonewall attack" is well-known theory, >but it could be a killer line against the right program... In fact everything wins for black as long as black knows a bit more as nothing about pawnstructures... ...which for preprocessors is a big problem... > > > >> >>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.