Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:40:14 08/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 1998 at 08:13:49, blass uri wrote: > >On August 16, 1998 at 06:57:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 16, 1998 at 06:49:31, Guillem Barnolas wrote: >> >>>On August 15, 1998 at 18:56:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 15, 1998 at 09:20:55, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>> >>>>>I know of some cases where killer books have been used, but after talking with >>>>>dozens of other chess programmers, I'm convinced it isn't a serious problem. >>>>>Most people aren't out to get other people at these tournaments. They just want >>>>>to do well and have fun. >>>>> >>>>>-Tom >>>> >>>>I don't agree here for several reasons. >>>> >>>>1. Ed doesn't compete any longer, because of frustration with having to >>>>"re-tool" the book to avoid getting "cooked" each year. >>> >>>This seems very awfull to me, I mean, it should be a question of computer >>>programming ability, chess playing, etc.. and not about who makes the best >>>opening book or who can "cook" the other sooner... I would like to think that >>>this is not an extended practice, but... We all know what happens when there is >>>money in between... Greetings, Guillem. >> >>For my first 20 years of chess tournaments (computer chess) there were *no* >>prizes of any kind, other than the usual trophies. "cooking" was still wide- >>spread. Now, for the commercial programmers, there are huge financial >>incentives to do well at a computer chess event. So cooking happens. For the >>amateurs, there is significant "self-pressure" to do as well as possible, and >>one way to do this is to find a busted book line and attack it if possible. It >>is far easier to do this than to improve the engine dramatically in a short >>period of time... >> >>It boils down to 'effort' and 'return for effort'. Cooking a book takes less >>time and offers potentially greater returns. >I do not think Cooking is easy because there are many theoretical lines >and the opponent can change the book theory against cooking. >The opponent can use a secret opening book in important competitions and not >repeat a line it used before. there are many lines, to be sure... but if you looked at games played by Genius over three tournaments, and you noticed that if it was black, and white played 1. e4, it always responded with 1. ... c5, and if white played 2. c3, it responded with 2. ... Nc6 every time, it would not be much of a job to prepare for that, assuming that if it played it 3 times in two years, it might well make it "4"... That's the way cooking happens for most programs, at least in years past at ACM-type events... as opposed to letting autoplayers play all day and come up with specific plans for a whole host of different openings... > >Maybe the only easy way is to play a bad move in the opening like >1.h3 and plan all the game after it but if the opponent uses some random factor >in the first moves it cannot help. > this has been done on occasion, at least at ACM/WCCC events. Not often, but the opponent wants to avoid a big book and start off "even" and have to play the computer, not the opening prep. >I think it is more important to do a book your program knows how to play than >to think about opponents. > >Uri depends. If you know your opponent doesn't vary much, and many programs are very predictable in "tournament mode" then a single book cook can pay off quite well.
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.