Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:09:01 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 09:07:24, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 08:54:13, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 26, 2002 at 08:31:02, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >> >>>On August 26, 2002 at 08:07:26, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On August 26, 2002 at 07:22:28, Steve Coladonato wrote: >>>> >>>>>There is a very long thread here concerning the use of a book developed for one >>>>>program being used by another program. I am not a programmer, so I don't >>>>>understand the ramifications of this. But, I do have a question(s). If the >>>>>same book were used by all engines, would that not be a fair comparison of the >>>>>engines strength? As long as a program is "in" book, it is not using any of its >>>>>internal algorithms so the moves it is making are recognized as "best" for a >>>>>particular line/opening. >>>> >>>>I doubt if it is a good idea. >>>> >>>>I think that there should be a small book when the program plays moves in 0 >>>>seconds and a big book when the program read the book but does not play the >>>>moves in 0 seconds. >>>> >>>>I saw cases of big tactical mistakes by program because of a mistake in a book >>>>happen and it is easy at least to prevent it(if we know that a move is good and >>>>the program evaluates it as a blunder we can put it in the small book). >>>>> >>> >>>I think in general it is the other way round. A lot of critical opening moves in >>>complex chess openings will not be found by engine pondering even in hours. >> They >>>are the work of GMs and hundreds of assistants over decades. As in your case, >>>that would only proof to be a poor or out of date opening book, where bad lines >>>are not eliminated. >> >>I am not talking about finding moves but about finding blunders. >>I saw cases when programs played tactical blunders in the opening that they >>could avoid by searching. >> >>I do not say not to play a move that is 0.2 pawns weaker but not to play a move >>that is at least 1 pawn weaker unless it is in a special small book. >> >>It is possible to start by analyzing every position in the big book for 1 second >>in order to find moves that are suspected to be losing more than 0.5 pawn. >> >>The number of these moves is going to be relatively small and it will be >>possible to analyze these move for longer time. >> >>If the computer still evaluates the move as a blunder then the programmer may >>look at the moves and decide if to include them in the small book. >> >>> >>>An interesting thought crossed my mind when I read the original post in this >>>thread. What humans actually do in tournaments is choose the opening in respect >>>to the current opponent, not to fit his style. Anybody designed an engine yet >>>plays book moves according to its current opponent? >>> >>>Andy >> >>I think that the ssdf forbid knowing the opponents and I think that this should >>not be allowed. >> >>It is possible to play a killer moves against every opponent and I do not >>consider it as fair because it is against old programs. >> >>In this case programmers can autoplay a lot of comp-comp games against old >>programs and play the lines that it won when the program play in the ssdf games >>against the old programs. >> >>It is going to increase inflation in the ssdf list. >>I think that even in the condition of today the book may be a big problem in the >>ssdf because it is possible that someone is going to have a killer book based on >>thousands of games against Fritz7 and Junior7 and his program is going to beat >>them by repeating lines that Fritz7 or Junior7 have no idea about >>because they do not know the secret games that he played against them. >> > >I agree, but Kramnik will possibly do this against Fritz, as is the case in any >human-computer match. This is the reason that the interesting match is kasparov-Junior and not kramnik-Fritz. 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.