Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:06:59 02/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2004 at 17:42:43, martin fierz wrote: >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 do not think that this assumption is correct. A program may know to play against some opening without knowing to play the opening. I can also add that Crafty got a draw in the relevant opening against Ruffian2.00 I also think that search is very important here. I bet that Crafty will do better in a lot of the opening that Hyatt claims that it does not understand if it has 10 times faster hardware and do worse in the opening that Crafty is used to play without hardware that is 10 times faster. 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.