Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:53:46 05/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 20:04:21, martin fierz wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 10:15:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Let me demonstrate a little thought experiment. If I would gauge (in 2002) the >>actually most known chess programs against say 1000 human chess players (first >>step) to get some insight into the Elo numbers, I would expect that the top >>programs would at best get Elo performances of 2200 - 2350, if I let the engines > >2200? you must be kidding! my rating is 2240 FIDE and even if i start all my >games against fritz with 1.h3 or some other (quite sensible) moves to take it >out of the book, i have no chance against it. >maybe someone here could experiment with a few top programs using no book >against other top programs. Give up. This is an old argument that started on r.g.c.c a year or two ago. I challenged those saying that an engine was 2200 without a book to play mine in a match. They wriggled and finagled, and _never_ accepted. Because they _know_ this is nonsense, but it makes for a good "troll" or "diversion" for them.. > >>How many years from now it will take to develop a real chessplaying robot who >>could participate in human tournaments completely on his own? Buying new books >>he reads, asking collegues for some information about this or that, >>differentiating between truth, lies and irony. ;-) > >i wonder why you have a problem with chess engines using opening books. is it >that they did not find these moves on their own? if yes: can i ask you about >your opinion on a computer-generated opening book? that is, an opening book >which the chess engine works on day and night, finding opening lines all by >itself? it stores this information and can retrieve it instantly and without >failure (unlike humans), but unlike today's opening books it has computed >everything itself. >the reason i ask is that my checkers program has exactly such an opening book. >after only a few weeks of analysis of checkers openings, my book contains much >of the human opening theory for checkers, and some corrections of it. everything >was discovered by the engine itself. it could never find some of the moves "over >the board", but this book just serves as a memory for it's analysis - very much >like a human chess master. > >computing such an opening book for chess is much harder, since there are many >more viable moves. but if you went on to write a screen saver application to >distribute the task, who knows - maybe something good will come of it. >incidentally, this is just what dann corbit is doing. jeroen noomen once wrote >me he also has had some success with automated opening book construction in >chess. > >aloha > martin
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.