Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 14:24:51 10/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1998 at 14:03:52, William H Rogers wrote: >It was written years ago by some of the leading chess experts that the day would >come when improvement in chess programs would come to a stop, as the men who >wrote the programs were only looking for faster machines to improve their >programs. The left out opening books (mega sizes), and end games, etc.. >What I propose would be to set some limits on programs, at least in competition >to the following examples; not to say that these are the final numbers. > >All programs would be limited to say 10 moves deep in their opening books and >end game books limited to maybe 4 pieces left on the board for each size. >Thinking on the opponents time is allowed as that is a major part of the chess >programs thinking. Another idea is to limit the moves to a certain ply depth. >This would make all programs more equal as to machine speed. > >In my opinion, if and when, ideas of this nature are set as a standard, we will >once again see major chess improvements in programming and that is what it is >suppost to be all about. >Even if a single person sets these perimeters, if they can, the true strenght of >the programs can be really realized. > >This is just one man's opinion, but I think it is a starting point. I am afraid I have to disagree. I am all in favour of equal hardware for competitions between programs, but I do not think it is appropriate to tie the programmer's hands by telling him what he can and cannot do with the hardware at his disposal. Like it or not, opening preparation is a big part of high-level chess, and yes, there are games where top humans win games through superior opening knowledge and preparation (personal mental "books" if you like). I do not see anything wrong in this happening in a computer-computer game. The loser should get either: 1) a better opening book, or 2) a better search engine, or 3) a copy of the other program's opening book! My feelings on endgames are similar. A computer has finite resources of memory and processing speed, and, IMHO "what it's all about" is producing the strongest (possibly most entertaining, but for tournaments, strongest) possible chess from those finite resources by using them in the most engenious way he/she can achieve. If that means big tablebases and opening books and so on, then so be it. This is what it takes, but it's not always easy to do, so should we penalise the strongest methods just because others who are either unable or unwilling to use the same techniques end up losing? They lose because they don't play as well. They don't play as well because they don't make optimal use of their hardware.... Best wishes, Roberto
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.