Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: 100:1 NPS Challenge

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 09:26:14 12/17/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 17, 2003 at 11:52:27, Roberto Nerici wrote:

>On December 17, 2003 at 09:35:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On December 17, 2003 at 09:05:55, Slater Wold wrote:
>>
>>>I guess I will be running the 100:1 NPS challenge.  Here's the info:
>>>
>>>
>>>I will use any books.bin & bookc.bin that Bob asks me to.  The book.bin will be
>>>created from enormous.pgn.
>>
>>My suggestion is to use book.bin, bookc.bin and books.bin from my ftp
>>machine.  book.bin has no learning data so it will start off in the best
>>possible way.
>>
>>remove position.bin before game 1.
>>
>>And, as I suggested previously, if, after a program leaves book, it is
>>in an obviously won or lost position, the game gets aborted and the next
>>one started.  There is no place for "book kills" when the goal is a time
>>handicap match.
>
>I'm sympathetic to this idea but how do we objectively decide if a position is
>"obviously" won or lost from the book? Some book lines may lead to a clear
>advantage for one side, many will be pretty even, but surely there are bound to
>be positions in which one side has what some think are marginal advantages and
>some think are major.

I don't know how to do that objectively, so my approach has always been to
just cull such games and only play them out when both programs are reasonably
"happy" with the position.  Of course both will hardly ever be positive at the
same time, but within reason.

>
>Amir did suggest starting from symmetric positions, which does avoid this
>problem (even if it isn't a good reflection of real openings).
>
>Roberto/.


That is another solution, although it might cause a problem.  IE I could
find a gambit that Crafty just happens to play well, and stick it in the
book, so that when Crafty has one side it wins handily, and if the opponent
doesn't know how to play it, then it will lose or draw.

As you can see, the book is _very_ messy.  And using the Nunn positions also
is subject to abuse as it is possible to tune for them, at the expense of
hurting play on other openings that are significantly different.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Looks like "damned" to me.  :)



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.