Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Kramer Vs Kramer (Yace + Book against Yace + No Book = 13.5 - 6.5)

Author: Mogens Larsen

Date: 04:30:22 09/01/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 01, 2002 at 05:42:16, Aaron Tay wrote:

>True. But i would think that the average autogenerated book might end abruptly
>at certain critical points where the chess engine would still need guidance. I
>would think a handtuned book would not have this problem.

That's correct.

>So if your autogenerated book abruptly stopped at move 20 of a complicated
>yuogslav dragon sicilian, the engine might come up with plausible moves but
>those which have being known in theory to be bad (this is where the wide
>commericial books with replies to even suspect moves shine). This is somewhat
>similar to a engine without opening books coming up with the first 20 moves
>unaided and stumbling on the 21th.

That can't be avoided, even if you generate a book with a depth of 60 or 80
plies. In general I don't think it's a major problem percentagewise. The
solution is learning and keeping the repetoire under control. After all, the
ambition is to gradually improve and develop towards the quality of a handtuned
book, not start with a finished product. Here I have the impression that the
tuning tools, eg. automatic learning and book extensions, are too slow and
generous to be effective. Maybe more cynicism is needed.

>Also as mentioned before by many others, tricky lines (!?) that are not played
>in GM practice , could be sprung on unsuspecting amaetuer using autogenerated
>books. In championship games, I could see people preparing such lines by testing
>the latest versions of their opponents to see if the engines react badly. If
>they do it's going to be placed in the books..

Quite. That's why I'm against too much exclusive emphasis on GM games, ie. the
2600.pgn syndrom. There's a lot of lines that engines don't understand, eg.
compensation concepts and various acute implicit plans. The repetoire is often
too narrow to be effective and therefore vulnerable.

Regards,
Mogens



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.