Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:47:30 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. > > > > > >duncan roberts You may be satisfied with the following approach: [Incidentally, thinking at such a top-level does NOT require someone proficient at coding.] A team of qualified humans could, in advance, work out a set of criteria for selection of the engine to analyze a particular position. The task of the controller program would be to assess the current position in terms of the criteria pre-selected by the humans. The controller program would then select the engine to evaluate the position. Then the chosen engine would be turned on and given a certain amount of time to produce an answer. The answer, and hence the resulting position would then be sent, by the controller program, to a GUI [or to one of Hyatt's UIs. : ) ] Then the controller program would begin evaluation of the next position to see how it meets the criteria. The process would repeat. At no time would more than one engine be working. Only one microprocessor would be needed. The key point is that the controller program would not have to be an engine. It would not contain searching and position evaluation software of the sort found in a typical modern chess engine. The "position evaluation" to return a numerical evaluation score would not be needed. Instead, all the controller program would have to do is check the position against the criteria. In spite of the conceptual simplicity of this idea, it might take a normal programmer awhile to create and debug it. The real time-consuming task would not be for programmers but for the team of humans who had to come up with the criteria. Is this what you had in mind? Bob D.
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.