Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:59:59 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 18:13:17, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 27, 2002 at 17:59:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 27, 2002 at 17:57:50, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >>>Of course I understand that there are games that are decided not by material >>>mistakes and I did not say that only material evaluation is enough >>>or even that only piece square table is enough but the point is that >>>often it is possible to translate positional advantage that >>>the program does not understand to positional understanding that the >>>program does understand. >>> >>>If you think that movei always like material then you have a big >>>mistake. >>> >>>After 1.e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 movei plays by search d4 and not c4 inspite >>>of the fact that c4 earns a pawn. >>> >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>I did not say it. >>>I said search depth+evaluation. >>> >>>Uri >> >>The important question in this is whether you find evaluation more important >>than depth. >> >>What do you prefer. Diep 1999 at 20 ply in endgame or current diep version >>at 14 ply in endgame? >> >>Simple question. 6 ply is a lot usual. >> >>Best regards, >>Vincent > >I guess current Diep at 14 ply in the endgame >Reasons: >1)In endgame knowledge is relatively more important >2)The plies may be misleading because of null move pruning and better evaluation >may help to fins tactics faster. Aha it seems i detected the error in your wording. It is a small different way of how i interpret things. You say here litterary: "better evaluation may help to find tactics faster". I would see that not as seeing 'tactics better'. I would see that as evaluation being more important than seeing a few ply deeper. Tactics for me is seeing the beancounter go a ply deeper. So being material up. If evaluation sees something sooner it has nothign to do with material of course, but with the positional/strategical knowledge of the evaluation. DIEP - Woodpusher: Bxg7?? world champs 1999. Current version doesn't consider it of course after several plies. In wcc 99 i lost. Most endgames i searched around 20 ply deep there at bob's quad xeon, simply because diep sucked in endgames at that time. If a programs evaluation is simple, it is very easy to search very deep, becuase any capture gives a cutoff. 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.