Author: Duncan Roberts
Date: 10:18:20 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 09:44:43, David Dory 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 > >For this to work, you'd need to have your top 5 programs all working on separate >computers, so they wouldn't interfere with each other's computing time. see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?337624 for more explanation > >Then sure enough, you'd get Junior with one best move, and Fritz with another, >and Shredder with still another best move, while ChessMaster might agree's with >Fritz's best move. So what move would you, or your interface program, pick? > >Your interface program would have to be as smart as Kasparov to tell which move >really was best (and sometimes Kaspy'd be wrong!). It isn't enough to classify a >position as "open", "closed", "beginning", "middle", "end", etc. That's WAY too >broad, and the whole classification might change dramatically in 4 ply or more, >so now the position being searched would need to be classified again, wouldn't >it? > >Pretty soon your work to classify the position would be eating up the programs >time to search, if you weren't careful. > >All programs do better in open, tactical positions. They all try to avoid closed >and blocked positions, simply because the best move is not frequently within >their search of the game tree. It's too deep to be found in the time alloted. > >I believe Kasparov has his hands full just playing against one of the top 5 >programs. No need to gang up on him with more programs. > >Dave
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.