Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 05:36:03 11/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2003 at 02:59:12, Mig Greengard wrote: >Having debated both sides of the issue in regard to man-machine play, I'm left >wondering why opening books are used in computer-only competitions. It's one >thing to say that a Kasparov has his own mental book and preparation so the >computer should too. But what is the point of proving you can hire a better book >preparer and where is the programming glory of winning on a cooked opening line >whether by design or by chance against another machine? > >Doesn't it make sense to just dump the books and start letting these things play >the opening on their own? Or if that's too dramatic and/or ugly, to play >Nunn-style matches with balloted openings? Nunn positions are by no means equal. They are balanced, from the average point of view. But even humans will prefer to play one side or another in Nunn positions, not any given side. >Otherwise it seems to me that you >just try to cover up the weaknesses of your program by tweaking the book to >avoid the positions it doesn't handle. Exactly, like humans do. As a human, when you don't like playing against French for example, you choose 1.d4. To "cover up your weakness" in that opening. Each program has a style of its own, and I don't see any problem in trying to avoid uncomfortable positions. >And that should be contrary to the goal >of making a good chessplaying machine. BTW, assume we ban the use of opening books. How are you going to enforce that rule?! You don't let me have an opening book file, fine, I will create an in-built book within the engine. There is no way you can stop that from happening. >Have their been significant projects >without books? Or with computer-only generated and tuned books? > >I don't doubt this has been touched on often here but I didn't find much in the >way of good answers to this in the archives. Is the continued use of opening >books just sheer inertia, the quest to play better chess or more human chess, or >are there other reasons? Too hard to regulate the definition of "book"? It's >obvious that books are becoming more and more important and the teams are >investing more work (and money) into them to be successful in computer-computer >play. On this point I fully agree with you. For example looking at Fritz's first three games in the WCCC, you will see that they were all won by the time the programs were out of book. Very "kureious" openings! >This all seems like a massive wrong turn or at best a distraction. > >One of the many suggestions for the next man-machine match is to let the human >access a his own database, perhaps a limited number of times. That way it's not >just a battle of human memory versus a specially prepared book with three >million positions entered by humans. If and when that happens, the book >advantage will be back on the human side. So it seems to me that the computer >folks (i.e. you guys) could head that plan off by curtailing the use of books or >eliminating. Instead you are increasingly dependent on them, particularly >against humans. > >But that's another thread and I'd love to hear some answers on why books are >still used in computer-computer play. I may quote you for an article, so shout >out if you don't wish your name to be used for whatever reason. Thanks, Mig
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.