Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:18:44 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 07:43:52, Steve Coladonato wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 16:06:55, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On August 26, 2002 at 14:01:00, Steve Coladonato wrote: >> >>>On August 26, 2002 at 09:56:24, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>> Same thing happens in human chess. You prepare an opening. The opponent is >>>>well prepared too. You go into your analysis and your opponent comes up with a >>>>move you missed. You lost out of book. >>>> >>>>>Matthias. >>>> >>>> José C. >>> >>>That's exactly correct. And at that point it is the skill of the player that >>>determines the outcome. Why not allow the skill of the engine to determine the >>>outcome by limiting the book depth? >> >>What if the "skill of the engine" is in learning in the opening? What if it has >>tons of lines 40 moves deep, and game after game it learns and prunes away lines >>and adds new lines. You, like many others, make the assumption that all chess >>programs work exactly the same way. If you make rules about limiting book depth, >>eventually you will have people making other rules about "now you do your >>searching here, but only to this depth" and what if my program doesn't do any >>search at all, but does deeper analysis of the position? Sure, it might not play >>as strong as a searcher, but that's not the point. The point is, not all chess >>engines work exactly the same, and so it's not right to make rules like this. >> >>To me saying "limit the book" is like saying, "Fritz has too good of a book and >>it affects it's performance and makes it unfair, so let's limit it's book." Why >>not use that same logic and make rules like, "Fritz searches too deep and it >>makes it unfair. Let's limit the depth that Fritz can search so that now it's >>FAIR for everyone." In addition to that, let's make a rule that Frans Morsch can >>only work on Fritz for 1 hour a day, because that's just not "fair" if he gets >>to work on his engine all day long everyday and we only get to work for an hour >>a day. >> >>That's 100% crap. It's not "fair" that the commercial engines have better and >>deeper books. It's not "fair" that they search deeper than our amateur engines. >>It's not "fair" that some people are born rich. It's not "fair" that some people >>are born with only 1 leg. Life isn't fair. Get over it. >> >>Russell > > >The book is a product of humans. Some books are a product of humans. There is also book making that uses only computer analysis. It's a new idea, and probably not as good as the human sort. Don't forget that the computer programs are also a product of humans! >So apparently, the strength of chess engines >is not in the program but rather in the book. ;-) It's in both. A great book and a crappy engine loses. A great engine and a crappy book loses. >As for the commercial >products, I don't use them. I did in the past. But to me, what's the >difference between an engine that plays at 2200 vs an engine that plays at 2800? > None. And if that difference is mainly in the book, then how far has chess >programming really come? Give Pyotr the Fritz book and it will still lose to Quark 0-10, unless it can find a book draw.
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.