Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:51:39 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 17:48:35, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 27, 2002 at 07:57:31, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >In fact by definition it is the case that if evaluation is right >you only need 1 ply search depth to find everything :) > >However we all know, except Uri, that programs suck ass strategical and >positional. Of course Uri, >not playing himself at any significant level himself, and probably >himself always losing because he drops a piece somewhere; if you can't >understand that there are many games in this world which do NOT get >decided by dropping a piece, then obviously debating further makes no sense. > >On the other hand there is a lot of evidence in this world, which is so >evident, that just tactics do not matter at all, that it's amazing you >only believe in search depth. > >However again, if you only believe what you see, and if the only thing >which gets shown at your own chessboard (1100 rated?) that games get >decided by who picks up the biggest piece, or sees mate in 2 before the >opponent has seen his mate in 1, then obviously it is going to be a hard >time for Uri. A small tactical note. Both Rudolf Huber and Vincent Diepeveen, they have shown clearly that it is no problem to search 30-40 ply with a program which is only searching tactics with nullmove. So only material. Nothing else. However any 1800-2000 national rated player completely destroys these programs, because they play 1.a3 or 1.h3 or whatever stupid nullmove. Isn't that already by natural induction enough proof to show that search depth itself isn't sufficient? Best regards, Vincent >>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.