Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:43:27 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. -:) > >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. I think that there are cases when it make sense(I do not think that it is easy to do it in the most productive way but at least it is possible to do it in a productive way). If it is known that engine A has better knowledge in rook endgames then you can decide to start to use it after transition to rook endgames. I did not try to find out which engine is best for different types of endgame but I guess that other people did it. Another example:The choice which opening book and program to use may be dependent lon the first move of white and it is possible that program A perform the best against 1.c4 when proigram B is the best against 1.f4(it is possible to use statistic of previous games in order to find out). > >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. The main problem with that project is the fact that it made the program slower because 2 engines had to analyze on the same time. The idea that is suggested is to give all the time to one of the programs based on the position. Uri
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.