Author: Pete Rihaczek
Date: 11:49:52 11/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
For machine-machine games, if you wish to eliminate the influence of different opening books, you can either eliminate them as you suggest, or else everyone agrees to use the same book. If you eliminate them entirely I submit that the games will look more computerish, going into lines known to be bad, or else going into the same lines over and over. Pair two programs without an opening book, and they will likely play the same game over and over. So it seems keeping the book is the better choice. But then you may have complaints that the book leads to positions more favorable to one program or another, etc., and if that happens you have to throw up your hands and let people make their own books. This is a competition, after all. If the goal is 'may the best machine win', then having a better opening book is no different than having better hardware, or more efficient algorithms. It seems to be a 'may the best machine win' competition, since Brutus for example is a different animal than the others, Diep is running on 500 processors, etc. People can do their engine vs. engine testing at home, a world championship should be more interesting, and allow whatever the competitors can put together to beat the rest. The same idea carries over into man-machine competitions. We want the strongest human vs. the strongest machine, regardless of the form the machine takes. The whole interest of the event is in the differences both entities bring to the table. The man is intelligent, the machine is no more intelligent than the desk it sits on. Because he is an intelligent being, the man can use his knowledge of what the machine is to his advantage. Kasparov made Fritz look worthless in a closed position, and he well knew the reasons the machine would have difficulty. An intelligent being has a whole dimension of advantages over an inanimate object. If that is fair, then anything the computer does to win is fair as well. Endgame tablebases allow superhuman knowledge of the endgame, opening books allow superhuman knowledge of the opening. Neither one should be handicapped, nor should the human be allowed access to either of those, because the machines have not proven themselves dominant yet. Computers have not shown themselves to be the equal of humans in chess understanding, Kasparov made that very clear in the match. Until computers are acknowledged to have superior insight into the game, it is premature to start offering the humans a leg up.
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.