Author: José Carlos
Date: 00:08:48 01/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2003 at 15:18:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. > >The problem without book is worse than the problem with book. Steer a program >into the Evans Gambit without a tuned book and a GM will tear it to shreds (for >instance). > >Opening positions are quiet positions where it will take a while for action to >develop. These are among the positions where computers perform the worst. > >Here is a fault which is easily corrected and I am astonished that it has not >been performed. > >A book is a dense object with many, many lines of action. However, compared to >the internal nodes, the exit points from the book are a very small fraction of >the book size. Every commercial book should analyze every single exit position >on a fast machine for ten minutes. Then, there will be no such thing as falling >out of the book and into a bad surprise. > >If any bad positions are found, the engine should backtrack until the position >is no longer bad. > >In other words, we need to check the perimeter of the book. There can still be >internal problems where strategic or tactical moves are missed. But most of the >problems are not like that. The idea is good and I plan to do something similar if someday my program is strong enough to trust such searches. But realize that every position in a book is an exit position, so you need to analyze all of them. I prefer the idea of verifying book during games and then dump that into the learning file so that it won't be needed anymore. IMO, learning is the way to build a solid book, but not the aggresive learning some programs do in order to win a match, but a more long-term learning. José C.
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.