Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:53:14 05/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2002 at 17:05:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 12:22:40, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 20, 2002 at 10:15:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>Excuse me if I ask a question already answered a hundred times or more in this >>>forum. Could someone explain, perhaps in understandable numbers of percentages, >>>how important the strength of the engine is in chess programs, are there >>>differences between commercial and amateur programs? >>> >>>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 >>>play without books and implemented book-like tricks. >> >>I expect the best programs with no book to do better than 2200-2350 if the >>humans also do not prepare special lines against the machines. > >But +if+ the humans know the computers are not using a book, the humans >will play opening lines that require deep analysis to avoid traps. The >Marshall. The Evans. The Goring. The King's gambit. Etc. This used to >be a common ploy in the 1970's against computers because back then the books >were very small. Thank you for your fair input of historical facts. Some of us see the "numbers" of 2700 and even more and so they thought that I must have lost my mind with my 2200-2350. Althought I mentioned that ist was more a resulting number after human players began the real fight. Of course this would only happen with a lot money at stake. I find it very important that the readers always kept in mind while watching events like Gurevich vs Junior that all this is not yet part of a real battle human chessplayers vs computers. Actually it's more fun than battle. And the player gets some money no matter if he'll loose. Rolf Tueschen >Ken Thompson had the biggest book in 1978, with all of >400K positions in it. We were next with about 40K. The rest were far >smaller. > >A gambit or sacrifice where the best move it to ignore it would be a good >trap for a bookless computer... > > > >> >>I think that book is overestimated >>If you do a sweningen tournament between the top program on A1200 and no book >>against the same programs on p200 with book I expect the program with no book >>and better hardware to win(you need to do only 2 games between every 2 programs >>in order to prevent repeating the same win again). >> >>I say the following: >> >>1)rating of top programs with no book on A1200 is bigger than rating of program >>with book on p200(unless you do a match of many games) >> >>2)rating of programs on p200 with book is better than 2200-2350. >> >> >>I even believe that for the ssdf list it may be better to have 3 times faster >>hardware and always change the first move and play with no book later. >> >>The number of possibilities in the first move is 20 so the program need to lose >>21 games in the same color in order to repeat the same loss twice. >> >>There may be some stupid blunders like 1.e4 b5 or 1.e4 f6 or 1.e4 f5 but it is >>possible to order this possibilities as number 18,19,20 so the program needs to >>lose 17 games against 1.e4 in order to do it and this is not going to happen in >>one match of 40 games. >> >>If the tester delete all learning after every match I expect the programs with 3 >>times faster hardware but no book to win. >> >>Maybe I am exagarating here but I am almost sure that at least A1200 with this >>idea is better than P200 with no book. >> >>Uri
This page took 0.01 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.