Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:50:28 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 11:30:55, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On September 06, 2002 at 11:11:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 06, 2002 at 10:55:11, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >> >>>>Saying that book is not important is not the same as to say that book is worth 0 >>>>elo today. >>>> >>> >>>That was what you declared about one week ago, but you change your position from >>>posting to posting. It is real funny! :) >>> >>> >>>>I think that programmers should care about the engine and caring about book is >>>>not important for me. >>>> >>>>I believe that there is a lot to improve without hiring people to write a book >>>>for me. >>>>I believe that even at the level of Yace there are a lot of things to improve in >>>>the engine. >>>> >>> >>>Not only Yace, but also all the Engines. >>> >>>"If my grandmother had mustaches, I would be the Circus Director. >>> >>>You repeat (the only consistent thing) that a Book only hides the Engine errors. >>>You only believe it, but you cannot prove it. >>> >>>The fact is that as the human player doesn´t invent the wheel, ignoring about 50 >>>years of chess theory, then the professional chess programmers doesnt ignore it >>>eather. >>> >>>I could conclude that your chess levels are better or superior than the Kasparov >>>Level. Good, My compliments. >>> >>>But, the fact doesnt reveal that. :) >>> >>>I am not hired by Diep. I am not payed by Diep neither Leila. I do it freely >>>because I like to do it. I don´t need that money and my fulltime job is enough >>>fortunately. >>> >>>The fact is not important for you is not a prove about you say. You believe that >>>but it is not the real truth. Good, my lunch dish is already served. :) >>> >>> >>>>I prefer to see the positions in the opening that programs blunder in order to >>>>decide how to fix the engine and not to give some book writer to write a book to >>>>hide the problems. >>> >>>The book doesnt hide problems of the engine avoid such problems. Tell me, if you >>>know that you are better playing the Dutch, you would play the Tango?!, knowing >>>that you suck there? >> >>I understand your point. >>No doubt that strong players should not do it in important tournament but >>I remember that I read that GM artur yusopov said that he decided to play in a >>tournament opening that he had no experience with it and the result was that he >>increased his possibilities. > > >The same applies for chess programs. > >> >>> >>>Good, I should throw out all the Books about Opening Preparations because you >>>jump to the abyss without parachute >>> >>>I would like to pointe out that the wheel was invented a long time ago. Please, >>>tell me if the square wheel can solve the problem of the traffic. :) >>> >>>Regards, Arturo. >> >>I do not say not to learn from theory but learning from theory can be done >>by improving the evaluation and the search rules of the engines and not only by >>having a big book. > >Interesting, you declared about one week ago the Chess Programs could solve the >all the opening problems without almost knowledge and you began to speak of how >your chess program (that I didn know) could solve every opening position in 90% >of success. I said that I guess that it can find the correct move in 90% of the cases. It does not mean that it is going to play correct moves in the opening in 90% of the games. > >I would like to know how you can solve all the openings with evaluation. I am >amazed and very pleased fun. :))) > > >> >>The second method is better because it can help also in new positions if the >>opponent decide to throw the engine from book in a few moves and it is easy even >>to throw super GM's from book in few moves so opening knowledge is important. >> >>Even if GM's decide to play 1.e4 e5 2.Qe2 you have not an easy win with black. >>The engine should play well. > >Really?!! Why not 1. f3!!! or 1. Nh3 maybe more interesting. :))))) > >I see you don´t know a coin of Opening Theory. why not 1. f3 and 2. g4!! with >white. I like this opening. :))) I know something about opening theory. I am not expert in this field but I have stable rating that is close to 2000 in the last years. > > >> >>Learning the reasons for the good lines in order to include them in the search >>rules and the evaluation is important. > >If it had been solved, the chess programs could play "perfect chess" since 20 >years ago. AFAIK, there is not a single program can play perfect chess excepting >tactics. I can learn the reasons for mistakes. I found that one of the reason for movei's mistakes is underestimating mobility so I increased my mobility evaluation and the version that is playing in the 3th divsion has bigger evaluation of mobility relative to the versions that were playing in the 3th divsion and the 4th division. I can look at a lot of mistakes and try to generalize some things to teach my program. I have also ideas that are not used in movei and I stopped the work on movei because I prefer to learn C better so I can check for bugs better in the future. > >There many good lines that are too complex of solved so the resultan position is >the essence of the thing. The resultant position should be a position that the >chess sillicon knows to manage. I do not believe that they are too complex to solve. I believe that there are positions that chess programs do not know to solve because the programmers did not teach them the right rules of evaluation and extensions in order to solve them. I believe that seeing a lot of examples can help to define small number of rules that are going to help to solve many of them. 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.