Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 19:43:15 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
>I think that you're completely missing what Uri is saying. Hello Dave: I have only missed one thing: the fact that Uri can prove his suppositions. The premise of this and useless debate was a previous declarations of Uri Blass. If his suppositions were true 100%, I would close my mouth. If you see this thread, nobody else is interested because many of his declarations are not a complete truth (I mean "thing that are not proved"). Of course, my position is not the complete truth either. But, I have worked about one year as a book creator for a chess engine and I had about 15 years of active chess and my elo for live chess is beyond 2000. So, I had to learned my errors by experience. > >One reason machines (and humans) learn opening theory is to save up time for >thinking later, but that's not the only reason. > ChessPrograms can have knowledge. I agree with you. What I don´t agree were declarations in previous threads where Urib Blass made light declarations that cannot been proved. It is proved that Engine like Fritz, Rebel and Tiger can reach many convenient positions because of the book. I don´t know any engine that can solve the 90% of the opening theory. Could you image to solve theory in MCO, NCO, etc and all the books in the planet. I don´t know any program including the current Top Program that can solve all the possible positions in the openings. >Humans also learn by example. By going over good opening moves, they can learn >to imitate them even in positions where there is no direct opening theory. >However, standard chess programs do not have this capability. > Correct and chess programs can learn, but a chess program won´t be able to save all the positions in the openings in 90%. Could you count all the possible moves in 40 plies? >Sometimes chess engines get into difficulty in the opening. Often, the software >developer will blame it on the book: how there was a typographical error in the >book, or how the book didn't cover that line because its author didn't know >about that cheap trap, and so on. But that's all just bullshit. > If it were a crap to have a book, then all the top Programs would be a crap. Could you tell me if a human player can stay alive without opening theory currently. I would like to ask Kasparov this single question. >Uri's point is (if I may anthropomorphize) that the chess engine ultimately has >to take responsibility for the moves that the program plays. A chess engine >abrogates this responsibility at its own risk. If it places 100% reliance on >its book, and isn't capable of finding good moves in opening positions on its >own, then it risks playing stupidly and getting its butt kicked every time >another program gets it out of book early. If it can't verify that a move is >sound and not a typo, it will lose games. That verification can happen before >the game or during it, but it needs to be done at some point. > No at all. If the current engine could solve all the positions, it could be truth and I would close my mouth. Correct. But, the problem is that many "similar positions" can hava a complete different evaluation so it is impossible in one week to solve all the opening positions. >You can see this in the evolution of machine-"booking up". It used to be that >you just hand-coded a book and blip, blip, blip, out came the moves. But >nowadays programs consider the frequency that moves have been played in the >past, the prior results of games with those moves, they can elect to perform a >search to verify on its own the quality of a move, and so forth. In games like >checkers where computers are simply better players than humans, their own >evaluation is often more important than what a human thinks, and they'll only >decide to go with the move humans play if they seem to be worth close to the >same value to the machine. > >Uri realises that he can discover weaknesses in his chess engine by examining >the moves it plays. If some of those moves are opening moves, what's wrong with >that? Not playing with an opening book gives him more chances to see his chess >engine go wrong, and consequently more opportunities to improve it. 1) Not only Uri Blass, but also the most important chess programmers. There's no problem in improving his program. Excellent!! The problem is you cannot misvalue as Uri has posted here the value of a book with light declarations. It is possible that an engine can react excellent in any position after the first five moves and it blunder in the 6th moves but it could react Ok in the seventh move. Why not to save work and point out to the Engine that 6. is a blunder. May, you can find 1000000 of blunders moves that the engine ignores in Move 15. If the chess game could have solved so single, I would prefer to play Ludo. Nobody has been able to solve the "mathematical problem" of chess. Additionally, Uri has declared in his Forum that his engines "almost without knowledge" can solve the 90% of openings. Do you know what it means 90% in openings? 2) The debate is computer are better than humans is not my point of dicussion. The point is I would avoid 50 years of opening theory evolution because a program could solve all the problems of the Dutch Defense for example. Tell me what engine can it do now? 3) Chess i more complex that Checkers and I cannot solve the chess estrategy with a single evalution + tactics. Forgive me sir, but I cannot buy the Uri's Ideas without proves and only based on in suppositions. This was my regretable conclusion after weeks of useless debate. > >Dave
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.