Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 06:52:59 01/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2003 at 08:05:57, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >As someone mentioned after the game, it is hard to imagine Junior losing in just >27 moves, had it not used the opening book. Today, the top programs already play >in a super-Grandmaster level (well, that doesn't include Kasparov of course), so >why should they blindly play variations played by players weaker than them? > >Of course, turning the opening books off totally is not a viable option, as the >programs still don't have the needed strategic vision to find their way early in >the opening phase. But maybe a stricter limit (depending on type of opening, >games played, statistics, etc) should be imposed for choosing moves right out of >the opening book. A more narrow opening selection is certainly an option. I would prefer starting with a tested repetoire against other strong computer engines, ie. creating a set of endbook positions and running matches. If the results are promising then there's at least a chance that the engine understands the post book position. Afterwards the games could be examined for opponent blunders. It'll be time consuming to have both a reasonably wide book and reach a certain number of reliable games. And the engine is developing at the same time, so in principle the book would fit less optimally than desired when finished. A general analysis of an existing Altermann book by the engine and trusting its eval in pruning lines is risky IMO. It might be able to play the line despite the poor eval. Starting narrow and going wider is better than the opposite. The problem is time. It's faster to generate something from top level games and having a GM or two looking it over. Although the Junior team may have done something else. Regards, Mogens
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.