Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 04:36:44 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 07:12:04, Uri Blass wrote: >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. > >For you it is impressive to see the same game again and again. >Not for me. The thing is to prove that a Book helps an Engine a lot to improve its level during the Opening. The idea is not to have random books because it is not interesting. I agree that to say impressive must no be mentioned here. But, you seems to misvalue the remarkable fact of a tuned book for a chess engine. > > >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. Yes, then I should conclude that every engine including Pierre, MSCP, etc. can solve the opening problems without almost any knowledge. If this were real true, I should ignore 50 years of theory. I don´t know what thing is called "Movei". I suppose is your private program or so. If you declare that this program without knowledge can solve the big majority of the cases, I would like to know what is "Big majority": 90%, 95%, 99%. I would be admired to believe that this program is competing at the same level of Gandalf, Yace or Insomniac without requiring a tuned book? Are realizing about you are saying? The programmer should see the position where the engine is blundering? This cannot solve the problem because you can have 1000000 positions where the programs, "the Top Programs" and the amateurs blunders a lot and it is not a problem of solving the position only. It is the problem of all the problem: strategy. Tell me: how a program without knwoledge can solve strategical problems of the openings. I would be admired. > >If both sides have only book learning the engine with no book cannot learn when >the engine with book can learn. You say that. The current match Yace with Book against Yace without Book is now 12-6. This is not remarkable? I am proving with facts not with suppositions. Post a concrete case like Dann Corbit did or I am doing to demonstrate that a chess programs is solving all the opening positions including strategical without knowledge. I am admired to see this. Regards, Arturo.
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.