Author: Dana Turnmire
Date: 11:44:50 05/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2001 at 11:52:19, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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. When you have a team of openings experts manipulating the opening for every game in a match it is actually a human playing the first phase of the game and not the program that is being sold to the public.
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.