Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 08:52:19 05/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2001 at 11:19:14, Dana Turnmire wrote: >On May 31, 2001 at 04:46:10, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On May 30, 2001 at 13:57:54, Dana Turnmire wrote: >> >>> This article appeared in the 1996 issue of Computer Reports and was written >>>by Michael Byrne. It shows me the only fair way to find an engines true >>>strength is WITHOUT the opening book. >> >>[snip] >> >>I disagree. If you compare programs without their book, you will create a >>different kind of problem. A programs eval can aslo be tuned with respect with >>the book they have. In other words, the book steers the position towards the >>type of position that the programs eval can assess accurately. This is perfectly >>legitimate. Human players do the same. As a human player, I try to play openings >>that steer the game towards positions that suit my style. If you test without >>book. The programs will end up in types of positions they would normally not get >>into. You will not get a true measure of their playing strength. What you will >>measure is the ability of program to analyze an arbitrary position. This is >>worthwhile to know if that is how you are going to use a program, but it should >>not be confused with playing strength. They are not really the same. >> >>If a program is susceptable to "rigged" opening books, that is the programs >>weakness and is fair game to take advantage of. Such programs should be enhanced >>so that they are less susceptable to such an attack. The way programs are >>currently tested and assessed encourages programmers to develop countermeasures. >>From this point of view, it is clear that the current way of testing is really >>just fine. Creating an artificial setting to test programs will only result in >>artificial results playing strength-wise. > > I suppose you have a point but if a commercial program is going to play a >MATCH with a grandmaster it should be required to use its normal opening book >and learning features without a team of openings experts manipulating the book >for every game. If a software maker is going to advertise that it's program >beat a grandmaster in a match it at least should be honest enough to let the >public know the books were "cooked" for that match. GMs prepare their openings with help from chessbase, chessbooks, chess playing programs and their seconds all the time and there is no need to disclose this, so why should programs be any different? Any reasonably intelligent spectator should just assume that both sides prepare their openings whether they are human or computer. Why should disclosure be needed? It would be naive to assume otherwise. It would be crazy not to prepare openings in a serious match. You could arrange a match where both sides (GM and comp) would agree to play their "normal" openings, but I think this would favor the comp. The GM is much more adaptable. Allowing opening preparation should favor the GM. A way to enforce this type of match is to play Fischer Random Chess where the start position is randomly selected. Whether that is true or not is perhaps open to debate, but I think the match would be less interesting, since it would not be a normal event. Every professional prepares special lines against individual opponents. This is part of chess as it is played today.
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.