Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:12:04 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 17:37:56, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 14:44:47, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 26, 2002 at 13:53:14, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>http://f11.parsimony.net/forum16635/messages/33526.htm >> >>It is better to play with the program against other opponents and not against >>itself to get a good estimate and not to play more than 2 games in a >>match(otherwise the problem can be aggresive learning and not lack of book). > >Hello: > >No, it is not better and it doesn't have any sense. As you declared in the long >thread below, you believe (but it is not demonstrated) that a engine with book >is not better than a engine without it. I did not say that engine with book is not better than an engine without it. > >You also believe (but is it not demonstrated too) that a small book is enough >for a chess engine. Small book until move ten is not enough to beat anything of >high quality done by Kure or Noomen. His lines are very deep and you will see >that the amateur engine doesnt have any chance against these "things". > >The Dann Corbits result is interesting and valuable because he proves that an >Engine with Book can improve its level being a random book. > >More amazing, I am running a Match that I have called "Kramer Vs Kramer" where I >will show how your suppositions are not real in any sense and how an engine is >helped a lot with a Book. > >The most impressive of this Match that I am running is the Score of the Engine >with Book against the same Engine without Book. For you it is impressive to see the same game again and again. Not for me. > >Of course, a Match of 20 Games that cannot prove it at all, but the real >positive thing is this engine is one of the strongest available free Winboard >engine in the map and the book used is a combination of a public available plus >other lines that I have added and the Engine shows another level in the Opening >of course in the score. > >It is nonsense to say that chess programs can solve every position. If this were >true, programs could beat humans in strategy. chess programs cannot do it but they have the potential to do it if programmers improve them so I think that it is better to look at the positions when programs blunder in the opening and to make the right observation how to improve programs based on looking in these positions. Movei with almost no knowledge can find book moves by itself in big majority of the cases so I can only imagine what a chess engine with clearly better knowledge about search rules and about evaluation can do. > >After a many tests that I have done privately, the current Engines cannot solve >any strategical problem successfully. In this sense, all the engines including >the Top are like childs in these kind of positions. > >The other supposition about "correct moves" without book is not true at all. >There are many positions where the Programs doesnt know how to react. > >The big value (OK, I will put BIG AS BIG) of the work of Jeroen Noomen or >Alexander Kure is they finds positions after the opening where the programs can >react pretty acceptable. Sometimes, they fail and the top programs can have a >lost game, but this is the biggest value of these Book Creators: to create >opening books that are very solid (and not only killer). > >Maybe, you don't give a coin for this, but this is a fact: The Success of Fritz >+ the Kure Book or Tiger + the Jeroen Noomen Book. > >More, the Match run by Corbit showed another difference. I will wait until my >Match is finished and all these unproved supositions are a complete nonsense. > > >> >>It may interesting to compare your book with changing the first move every game >>so you can play a match of 40 games without losing the same game twice(the only >>problem can be different order of moves). >> >>Uri > >No, it is not intersting because an engine without book will repeat the same >moves if it doesnt have any kind of learning. The same apply for the engine plus >a book. If both sides have only book learning the engine with no book cannot learn when the engine with book can learn. Most engines have no learning except maybe book learning so testing them with no book is not interesting. 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.