Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 16:05:37 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 18:35:28, Stephen Ham wrote: >On December 30, 2002 at 16:49:23, robert flesher wrote: > >>Without the opening knowledge that we all attain as we become better players the >>game is NO longer Chess it a matter of speaking. The computers must have the >>basic positions of all the major openings as these are time tested and proven to >>be sound in relative terms. I have stated that engines are tuned for certain >>positions, this is one of the strength's and should not be taken away from them. >>Its like asking, or telling Mikhail Tal he cannot sac.....//Botvinnik would have >>thanked us:)//...... there goes his strength, his edge!. If the concern is the >>rating?use the Nunn test positions where each engine gets a chance to evaluate a >>key, well known position. To watch computer's battle through the opening seems >>like a waste of time to me as they still lack the long term strategic >>understanding needed. The day i see a computer play the Marshall Gambit, Morra >>Gambit, or other genuine pawn sacks in the opening for positional play, or to >>get an edge, then i will change my mind. Cheers~ > >Dear Robert, > >Thank you for some interesting points. Still, I agree with Uri that there's >value in chess engine testing without opening books. In short, I think it all >depends upon WHAT one is trying to test. > >I feel reluctant to post here since I'm a computer dummy, while you and the >other readers know more about them than I ever will. As such, I'm at risk for >weriting something stupid. But if you can bear with me for a bit, perhaps I can >illustrate my point. > >I first visited this site about the time of my correspondence chess matches with >Fritz 6a and Nimzo 7.32. > > http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/ham/ham.htm > >At that time, a debate was raging about ChessMaster 6000. It was involved in >various tournaments with Fritz and Nimzo and Rebel, etc. While never a >tournament winner, it generally seemed to finish 2nd or 3rd in each tourney. But >after I saw that actual game scores, I concluded that it may be the "strongest" >program. Why? Because it was clear that it had the shallowest opening book. >While Nimzo's opening book was deep (often extending well over 20 moves) and >broad, and the opening books of the other programs were customized for each of >their respective styles, ChessMaster seemed to have a very "generic" book that >was often out-of-book by move 10. That meant that it had to spend about 20-25% >of it's total time to find moves that were still in the opening books of its >competition. That's the equivalent of playing at a handicap of 20%-25% less time >than your opponent. So, what that meant to me as an observer, was that >ChessMaster might be the instrisically strongest program. Instead, it only >finished 2nd or 3rd because of it's small and untailored book. > >So if ChessMaster 6000 had a larger book - one customized to its strengths, it >might have been a regular tournament winner. Nonetheless, for those who want an >engine with the best computational strength, then ChessMaster seemed to me the >ideal candidate. > >Still, I know that's not what everybody wants. Many here like to have their >programs compete in tournaments, and part of that tournament success/failure is >connected to having high-quality books. So for those who wish to make >comparisons on that basis, then you are absolutely correct, Robert. Then an >exclusion of opening books is silly. But for those who instead want to find out >which program is the best general analyzer, there's value then in excluding >opening books from the testing process. > >What's my point? Well, some of us chess players want to test out our opening >novelties against strong competition that won't tell everyone else about our >secret discoveries. A strong chess engine is helpful at such times, and an >opening book is of no value to it then. Instead, we are just concerned with >accurate analysis. > >All the best, > >Stephen For some reason I remember reading something similar to this by a very strong player. I believe it was you Stephen. http://ccc.it.ro/search/ccc.php?art_id=54318
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.