Author: Duncan Roberts
Date: 08:41:14 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 10:47:30, Bob Durrett 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. >> >> >> >> >> >>duncan roberts > >You may be satisfied with the following approach: [Incidentally, thinking at >such a top-level does NOT require someone proficient at coding.] true but to implement it would 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. yes this is the idea that I once saw being discussed on this forum. While to get a perfectly implemented system with about 25 different criteria may take months of work, what I did not quite understand is that to do it in a basic crude way it could look just at open, closed, blocked, beginning , middle and end game. Th code to recognise each of these different types of positions is I assume publicly available. also the strenghts and weaknesses of all top programs is widely discussed and known. So in theory it should not be more than a week's work to do it and get a potential gain of 100 elo points. what are people waiting for? Duncan
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.