Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:16:47 06/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2001 at 09:01:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 28, 2001 at 03:03:11, Martin Schubert wrote: > >>On June 27, 2001 at 23:17:01, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On June 27, 2001 at 18:22:17, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On June 27, 2001 at 17:22:18, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 27, 2001 at 17:13:12, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 27, 2001 at 17:04:37, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 27, 2001 at 13:24:45, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 27, 2001 at 13:09:56, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On June 27, 2001 at 12:45:24, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I post only my fantastical games....and "I'm happy"! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Ok.? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Best wishes, >>>>>>>>>>Eduard >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hi Eduard, >>>>>>>>>Hi Mark, >>>>>>>>>I think that Eduard discovering about weak points or "bad moves" can be very >>>>>>>>>helpful for the chess programs developers community because they can learn the >>>>>>>>>lesson and fix the weak points of the programs, like in this case Shredder. >>>>>>>>>So I think that the contribution of Eduard is welcome as a "tester" of the >>>>>>>>>computer creatures. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The programs have the weaknesses at the time controls he is playing at, but so >>>>>>>>what, this is not news to any programmer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Rubbish. Programs have the weaknesses at all time controls. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not exactly the same. >>>>> >>>>>Not exactly the same more weaknesses but they have weaknesses. >>>>> >>>>>>Program have weaknesses at all time control but I proved that at least one of >>>>>>his games with Na3 could not be won at tournament time control. >>>>> >>>>>No you proved simply that at a specific more juncture the program >>>>>would play a different move, that's a totally different thing altogether. >>>> >>>>You are right but it seems to me that after Kg8 instead of going forward with >>>>the king Eduard could not win. >>>> >>>>I did not prove that he could not win by the same line but this was my >>>>impression. >>> >>> >>>Then that was what you should have posted instead of what you posted. >>> >>>>> >>>>>>I am sure that in more games programs may play better and I simply did not check >>>>>>it. >>>>> >>>>>As the human also has a right to play better. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>He is playing tricks, do it over the board at 40/2 under tournament conditions. >>>>>>>>He can't do it, unless he knows the programs book, but if you change the way the >>>>>>>>program played a slight bit he would be lost again. For Eduard to win, he must >>>>>>>>expolit the computer openness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What are you talking about? have you even bothered to look at any of his games?. >>>>>>>The programs are out of book at move 2. So what's the book got to do with >>>>>>>anything?. >>>>>> >>>>>>At tournament conditions the programmer can change the book and Eduard is not >>>>>>going to have a possible way to get the program out of book at move 2. >>>>>> >>>>>>The number of positions after 2 moves is big enough and it is possible to have >>>>>>some replies in book against 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 and every short bad line of white. >>>>> >>>>>The only way is for these type of oddity openings being booked and that >>>>>isn't the case with current commercial programs. There are many other lines >>>>>that take a program out of book and to make lines for them all is almost >>>>>impossible. >>>>> >>>>>Sarah. >>>> >>>>It can be done automatically by the program. >>>> >>>>I remember that someone posted here that the shortest way to get his program out >>>>of book was to sacrifice material. >>>> >>>>It was something like 1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 d5 3.cxd6 e5 >>>> >>>>something like 1.d4 c6 2.c4 a6 does not work. >>> >>>Whatever try h4 or a4 they both work. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >>I think it's not important which moves work and which don't. There are a lot of >>possibilities. For example in closed sicilian I think there are so many moves >>possible. You can't put everything in the book. >> >>Martin > > >It seems that few understand the concept of "exponential growth". Otherwise >they would not look forward to typing even a 4-ply book. > >at only 4 plies total, that is 197000 moves. 5 plies makes that almost 5 >million moves. And 5 plies won't cover very much.. The book does not include every legal move so practically you need clearly less than 197000 moves to cover 4 plies in your book. Another point is that some of the positions are the same with different order of moves and you only need to rememeber the positions It is possible to cover 6 plies and it is practically enough to avoid repeating the same line gain and again. The computer can avoid repetition of the same 3 moves in hundreds of games when it has 5-10 responses in almost every position. Even if you use only 2 plies you can get a lot of different games. first game may be 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 d6 second game 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 e6 third game 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 4th game 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 Nc6 5th game 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 e5... You are going to need a lot of games to get one repetition of a line that was played in the past and humans have better things to do then to learn hundreds of lines against the machine and they need not only to learn hundreds of lines but also to find hundreds of lines to beat the machine. Uri
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.