Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:04:15 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 13:28:58, Duncan Roberts wrote: >On December 22, 2003 at 12:27:06, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On December 22, 2003 at 11:41:14, Duncan Roberts wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>(1) In all fairness, if you were the kind of "competent computer chess >>programmer" you require, you could do the coding yourself. If you are not, you >>may not be in a very good position to judge the amount of time and effort >>required for working out the details, coding and debugging. : ) > > >I am not a chess programmer and so i would like other programmers >to comment on how long a basic version would take. I can only say that I do not know how to do it without the source of shredder,fritz and other top programs. I do not talk about the problem of defining positions that one program is playing better and I even have no idea how to write a program that only tells Fritz to play in the odd moves and tells shredder to play in the even moves(it will certainly be weaker than Fritz or Shredder but I have no idea how to test how much weaker without wasting time by entering moves manually). Maybe better programmers than me can in a week build a program that tells Fritz to play in the odd moves and shredder to play in the even moves but my knowledge is simply not enough to do that task. I believe that it is possible because a program should be able to do everything that I can do manually and I can manually do it by moving the mouse to the right place but I have no idea how to tell a program to tell the computer the same things that I tell it by moving the mouse. If somebody can write a program that tell fritz to move in the odd moves and shredder to move in the even moves then it may be productive if he does it and release the source code of this program that does not need to know nothing about chess. 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.