Author: Mig Greengard
Date: 06:29:06 11/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2003 at 08:36:03, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >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. My point is not which positions in particular, just balloted to avoid the need for human interference with the book, or avoid a book at all. Of course there would be a preference but as long as they are all acceptably balanced and random that would be fine. 200 approved positions, for example. >>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. That means you are in favor of humans-as-chessplayers helping the machine, not only humans-as-programmers. I recognize that comps aren't yet ready to play without books, but the current state of heavy influence by a team, usually with GMs, on picking the openings - even for each game - is moving away from programming a computer to play chess. Having a significant percentage of decisive games in Graz, for example, decided in the opening books would be a shame and a major waste of time in my opinion. It's only marginally less silly in man-machine. When I test an engine I don't even bother with the opening book. It's just a distraction from how well it evaluates positions and finds tactics. >>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. This is very much a separate issue, and one I mention in my original message. I doubt a technical solution is impossible. For now I'm interested in the theoretical argument in favor of books, since they continue to be used enthusiastically. Are they just a necessary evil? Or does everyone think they can use it to their advantage? Is there no movement to abolish them or limit them?
This page took 0.01 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.