Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 04:46:54 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 07:43:27, Uri Blass wrote: >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 engine had run on separate threads in a multi-processor environment. I think that Stefan finally had realized that the win from hardware environments like this is safer when using a parallelized version of the same engine instead. Uli > >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.