Author: John Lowe
Date: 13:31:37 12/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2002 at 14:14:13, Bob Durrett wrote: > >To "review the bidding," we should be able to agree on the obvious observations. > Then, having put aside the obvious, there remain a few more observations worth >making. > >What makes the initial position so special? > >It's because it is the single most analyzed position in chess. The top minds in >the chess world have been analyzing this position for hundreds of years. > >Other opening moves are similar, but have not received quite as much attention. > >Endgame positions are also "special" since they have been extensively studied. > >It would be unreasonable to expect a chess engine to analyze such positions in >just a few minutes and learn as much as has been learned over hundreds of years >by human analysts. That's why we use opening books. As for endgames, there may >still be more to do. > >Suppose the entire human chess community analyzed a middlegame chess position >exhaustively for the next 600 years. In that case, it seems reasonable that a >book, similar to an opening book, would be the thing to use for games starting >with that special position. > > >The above is the "obvious" part. > > >So, if we can put these obvious observations aside, what else is there about the >initial position that is "special"? Another question is: "Do chess engines do >as good a job of analyzing the initial position as they do for other positions?" > >One thing is that most of the pieces are poorly positioned. Mobility is bad. >Tactics are missing. Generally it's not a good position. > >OK. Now, do you suppose other positions occur in chess that are as bad as this >one? If so, how well do chess engines do with such positions? > >Perhaps chess engines are not optimized for analysis of such positions because >they occur so rarely. No need to worry about the initial position, since the >book takes care of it. > >A big question in my mind is whether or not chess engines do a reasonable job of >analyzing the initial position. Given the absence of an opening book, is the >initial position really all that difficult for an engine, when compared to other >positions? > >Anyway, I could go on and on with such questions. > >What do you think? > >Bob D. Hello again Bob, There's no fool like and old fool at rushing in where angels........ I've paused my half-written program at the one-ply stage for what seem to me like respectable reasons. What happens if the opponent makes a non-book move!!!!!! (Horror!) I have't written even a repertoir book for it yet - small beer! When I play it against programs with books it seems to stay "in book" for quite a number of moves and when it goes "out of book" it still has an edge with some computer opponents. Centre control, development without over extension, castling, pawn discipline ......... (Teach yourself chess stuff). It's a goldmine for heuristics and not realy a problem - unless some GM or computer has a line analysed all the way out of intuitive sight. Perhaps an unexpected h3 at move 4 - 6 will defuse even some of these without too much damage being done. Well you asked what I thought!
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.