Author: martin fierz
Date: 14:42:43 02/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2004 at 14:59:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 26, 2004 at 04:37:37, martin fierz wrote: > >>On February 25, 2004 at 22:42:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 25, 2004 at 18:40:06, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>> >>>>On February 25, 2004 at 13:46:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What book are you using for Crafty? >>>>> >>>>>It will _never_ play 1. g3 as white with any book I have ever distributed. Not >>>>>that it is a bad move, but it suggests that something is way wrong with the >>>>>setup you are using for Crafty, at least. >>>>> >>>>>Aha. I see you are using the fritz powerbook with max variety... >>>>> >>>>>That begs the question of what your "tournament" is supposed to show, since a >>>>>wide book introduces _lots_ of luck into the outcome, and won't be reproducible >>>>>by anyone else since nobody uses one common book for multiple engines... >>>> >>>>What do you mean "nobody"? Everybody does do it all the time! And a wide book is >>>>even better, it shows what your search-object (engine) is capable of in a wide >>>>variety of positions, in stead of playing over and over and over the same few >>>>"proven" openings. If Crafty is mated in 12 moves in an irregular opening, >>>>wouldnt' that be interesting to know? Think about it. >>> >>>Not if that opening is 1. g3, which neither it nor I (nor most anybody) will >>>play. Ditto for the 1. f4 openings, the 1. b4 openings, etc. >>> >>>I don't write code to handle such cases, if I never expect to have to play them >>>over the board... >>> >>>Now if you choose _reasonable_ openings, that might be another matter. But I >>>don't particularly like 1. g3 and after having played chess for 40+ years as a >>>human, I _still_ don't ever play that opening... >>>> >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Bas. >> >>i think bas is very much right. i test with nunn2 positions. these cover a lot >>of variety, closed and open positions, positions with opposite-side castling >>etc. you get a better idea what an engine can do if you test lots of different >>positions, and also what it can't do! > >And once you learn that it can't do something (say a hyper-modern type opening) >very well, what then? I just say "don't play that opening" and go on, and maybe >when I have time, at some point in the future, I might address that. IE it was >a long time before I would let Crafty play any fianchetto sort of opening as it >didn't understand how critical the bishop is to defend the weak squares caused >by the g3/g6/b3/b6 pawn push. Once I fixed it, I allowed those openings. But >until I did, I did not. I would call it silly to make an old program of mine >play such openings, because I _already_ know that it will do badly with them. >What is the point of seeing that again? that's not the point. if crafty can't handle a position with the fianchetto, then odds are it probably doesn't understand how to play against it either... >>i don't understand your take on the opening moves. 1. g3 is a sound move. 1. b4 >>is slightly weird, and 1. f4 is really weird. > >I think f4 is pretty good, in fact. once again, that is where our chess rating difference comes from :-) >But while g3 is perfectly sound, white is >saying "I am going to play on the wings in many variations (while in others you >might see a quick d4/e3/etc of course). And my program simply doesn't like that >idea very much. same answer as above: if you can't play one side of an opening, you probably can't play the other either. > >>i also wouldn't want to test too >>much with moves like 1. f4 or 1. g4; but 1. g3 is fine - it mostly transposes to >>some regular opening with fianchetto like some form of catalan or english, which >>are good, solid openings. it definitely qualifies as reasonable! > > >Depends on your definition of "reasonable". "sound opening"? Yes. But >"sound opening for a program that doesn't like the resulting positions at the >moment?" No. > > > > >> >>finally, i have played openings that are slightly unsound just to learn about >>the resulting positions (e.g. queens gambit tarrasch defence to learn about >>IQP). you can stop playing them again later, but you will have learned something >>you can apply in similar positions arising from other openings. for engines the >>same: if crafty cannot handle positions that come up after 1.g3, there is some >>kind of problem in crafty.... > >Perhaps the problem is already known? And discovering it a second, third or >fourth time is not exactly going to reveal anything new... That was my point. >That is why I release books with my engine. I consider a chess program to be a >combination of engine, book, endgame tables, configuration files, and the like. >Change any one of them and the "program" is now "different". IE I'll play you >as many games as you want (human to human) but if you ask me to play 1. g3 I'm >not going to comply. I have other openings I like far better. :) That is the >idea here, IMHO. It makes no sense to force the program to play something it >doesn't "like". you are thinking of maximizing playing strength only. what if i wanted to use crafty as analysis module in chessbase? i would want it to make reasonable suggestions in all openings! i never use chess engines to play against. i always use them to analyze. >Do you think you could coax anything but 1. d4 out of (say) Korchnoi, when the >game is important?? certainly. Nf3 and c4 at the very least. modern top grandmasters play everything, every single one of them. there are very few GMs who stick to a very narrow repertoire (eg sveshnikov, lputian), and none of them is in the very top. coincidence? cheers martin > > >> >>cheers >> martin
This page took 0.01 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.