Author: Duncan Roberts
Date: 05:04:33 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 07:53:11, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On December 22, 2003 at 07:39:06, Duncan Roberts 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. -:) >>> >> >>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. ? > >Is it really as easy as this ? >Can we say, A always plays blocked positions better than B ? > >I doubt it. > if it is true to say that A plays blocked positions 80% of the time better than B and if the code to recognise blocked positions works most of the time then I would have thought it would be trivial to get a good improvement for not too much work. >> >> >>>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 ? > >IIRC, the decison making program analyzed for instance the main lines coming >from either engine. Stephan had coded some checks which main-line may look >"safer" or more reasonable. Or by doing some plausi-checks regarding the >terminating leaves of the 2 main lines. > >Probably, there had been many more criterions like this. > >>> >>>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.