Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 06:19:08 08/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 14:46:49, Russell Reagan wrote: >On August 27, 2002 at 07:32:26, Steve Coladonato wrote: > >>Are these prepared books better than ECO? > >I think they are just different than books like ECO, NCO, MCO, etc.. Those books >are more of an attempt to give us a comprehensive, one volume opening reference. >These books, for the most part, have only the good lines. Professional books for >computer chess probably have a lot of the same good lines, but also many "trap" >lines, maybe some drawing lines, and so on. For example, if the computer is >black, and white plays a bad move, then the continuation probably isn't going to >be in ECO, MCO, etc., but in a professional book, it may have the continuation >because the "trap" might be too deep for the engine to see on it's own. > >>If there were a "standard" book of say 14 moves the playing surface is leveled. > >That's not the point! > >If what you want is everything to be "equal", then forget it. People aren't >equal. Some have more intelligence, some have more time to work on their engine, >some have more money to get faster computers, etc. I think the worst thing to >come out of the "equal rights" movement is that now anytime anything isn't >"fair" people start complaining and taking people to court. Life isn't fair, and >people aren't equal. Do we deserve equal RIGHTS? Sure, but RIGHTS do not include >you (or anyone else) getting an equal opening book, sorry. > >>It is then computer vs. computer. > >Nope, it's still human vs. human until computer AI is more advanced and >computers can think for themselves. Do you think Fritz is on top of the SSDF >list because of superior learning ability in Fritz, or because Frans Morsch >(author of Fritz) is extremely talented? The answer is of course that Fritz's >success is due to one HUMAN, Frans Morsch. Computers may be playing the games, >but it's still human vs. human. > >>Apparently, these books are making it >>computer vs. human until both are out of book. > >Wrong again, see above. > >>Where does the computer program >>start and human intervention end. > >The computer program starts when it's executed. If it supports Winboard or UCI, >there is no need for human intervention, and the computer will play >automatically, based upon what the HUMAN told it to do of course :) > >>From what I have heard so far, the only thing >>chess programs do well is look up things. > >Oh no, they do many things well. For example, they can look things up in a book >very well (which the HUMAN told them to do) and they can search very well (which >the HUAMN told them to do) and they can evaluate positions pretty well (which >the HUMAN told them to do). Seeing a pattern here? > >Humans write the chess engine just like they write the book. The computer >follows the humans instructions, whether the instructions are in the book or in >the engine. > >Russell Russell, Are you saying that the purpose of the chess engine is not to "solve" chess but rather to implement a programmer's knowledge of chess? If not to solve, then the big advantage the computer has is that it "knows" all openings and all lines and of course does not have to commit anything to memory. It is tireless and does not have to prepare for a specific opponent (although I will probably get an argument here). Also, if not to solve then I am really disappointed. Not that I want to see chess solved but that the development of an engine is just to be the "best" computer playing program and, of course, to reap the commercial rewards. And, if not to solve, then I don't think the best heuristics nor algorithms are being searched out. Just tweaking what already exists. I think you have to be willing to throw away a major part of your code to continue forward. I think the amateur programs have an advantage here in that there are no commercial distractions to the development of their engines. Steve
This page took 0.03 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.