Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:57:31 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 07:36:44, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >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 guess 90% > >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? No It is not close to the level of yace A previous version that is at similiar level to the last version with a very small books of less than 1 kbytes(I have one book for white and one book for black) lost 40-10 against yace that used only defensive learning to avoid losing the same game twice. > >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. Strategy is often tactics+right evaluation if you search deep enough. 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.