Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 00:24:04 08/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 1998 at 07:58:21, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >There have been quite a few threads this month dealing with test positions which >test verious aspects of the software. > >But there is one question about the software which nobody seems to want to >mention: Why do the chess engines have trouble with the initial position where >no pieces have been moved yet? [Position at the start of all chess games] > >If the programs can be "tweaked" so that they play good openings, then all of >the opening books will become unnecessary! > >Why not work on the "initial position" and get the programs to find the best >move for that position? Finding the BEST move for the starting position (the most complex of all and, finally, the one that we try to resolve since the game exists!) would need to know all the possible endings that could arise from every opening move. So, it is not possible to decide whether 1.e4 is better than 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 etc. Also, if every program finds it own "best" move, it will ALWAYS start a game with it! Finally, the opening books have several uses : 1-Save time for later in the game, since these moves are played instantly 2-Add up variety in the play 3-Make sure the program gets a good position whatever the opponent plays in the first few moves 4-Some "cooked books" are made to take advantage of some weaknesses spotted in specific opponent's play and thus win or increase the chance of winning. Nowaday, I think that most programs use an opening book because of reasons #1 and #2. As I know, Fritz plays quite well without opening books (as the module in Chessbase, it usually stays in the theory for a while, even without book). After all, what is a book, if not a History book of what has happened before in chass games? It doesn't say what is going on ACTUALLY nor what will be played tommorrow! So, for me, I am not using the program as depending on its book(s), but use ADD what it's thinking into the book! Just as an IM or GM is not following an old book, but rather ADDING things to the theory every time he plays a game. The reason #4 is not as effective as it was (was it really ever?) since most programs are "learning" things as they play... Serge Desmarais
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.