Author: Duncan Roberts
Date: 04:39:06 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 07:24:59, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On December 22, 2003 at 07:08:09, Duncan Roberts wrote: > >>Different software engines have different strengths and weaknesses in different >>types of positions and I once saw mentioned the idea that one could raise the >>elo level of chess software by 150 points by having some software which would >>interface with the top 5 programs and would have all of the strengths and none >>of the weaknesses of each individual program. This would be achieved as the >>interface program would ask the individual program to only play the type of >>position it played best at. >> >>kasparov once mentioned that in certain positions junior plays at 150 elo points >>higher than the competition, on the other hand he said fritz is more 'certain'. >> >>An interface program should be a far tougher challenge for kasparov to crack. It >>would truly reflect the best of computer science against the best chess player. >> >>I do not know much about computer chess, but I assume that to implement this in >>at least a basic way should not take a great deal of time. (a week ?) >> >>Is this right? and if so (although it is easy to ask) why is nobody doing it.? >> >>There must be many good programmers on this site whose chess programs while good >>cannot realistically hope to reach the 'top 10'. Surely (assuming the top 5 >>chess program authors co-operate with this) they would be making a much bigger >>contribution to computer chess by implementing an interface program. >> > >So, the interface program has to find out, which engine to invoke in a >particular position. I would guess that this is at least a highly non-trivial >task. -:) > To do it in a basic way it could look, at open, closed, blocked, beginning , middle and end game. would that be non trivial and should it in theory give it a good improvement. ? >I am also quite doubtful whether it really makes sense to switch engines within >a game, this way violating continuity of game. E.G., engine A may thrive for a >position which engine B doesn't like at all. > >BTW, SMK's older project - development of a kind of triple-brain - had gone a >bit into a similar direction. Stephan had 2 different engines, analyzing >simultaneously, and a 3rd program controlling them and making a decision which >result to accept. AFAIK, this project had terminated. > if it did not look at the type of position, and it did not analyze itself on what basis did it decide which is best ? > >Uli > > >> >> >> >> >>duncan roberts
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.