Author: blass uri
Date: 13:49:00 12/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1998 at 08:32:39, Harald Faber wrote: >On December 23, 1998 at 08:23:33, Nouveau wrote: > >>>>difference), so why not trying another type of tournament ? >>>> >>>>Chess programs have different styles : they don't treat positions the same way, >>>>they don't "understand" chess the same way, so why not thematic tournaments ? >>>> >>>>For example, how do they deal with the Ruy Lopez ? Which one is the best >>>>Scottish player ? Which one defends best against the King's gambit ? >>>> >>>>I'm sure we could have interesting results. The point is not to have another war >>>>about strength, but to have a better idea of the way computer chess programs >>>>deal with different type of positions : it is a very rare subject here. >>> >>>This reminds me on the Nunn test which indeed is a thematic test. 10 (equal) >>>opening positions are taken out of the opening theory. >>>Indeed some try to test strength with this test... >> >>I understand the Nunn test as a "engine without opening library" test : it's a >>try to compare relative strength of engines. I think it's a good point to >>evaluate "pure" strength. >> >>That's not the direction I thought. The idea is to look at the way programs deal >>with different openings : some are complex, others positional or strategic, and, >>for the games I looked at, different programs have completly different evals for >>these positions. > >The Nunn test has different openings. Could you specify your idea where the >difference is? > >>Besides it would be interesting, for me (am I alone in the case ?) to know which >>programs play better (understand better ?) the King's gambit, the Schliemann >>gambit of the Ruy Lopez or the Fajarowicz gambit. Other may be interested in the >>Sicilian Dragon or the Giucco Piano. I'm sure we would find great difference >>between programs of a generally same strength. > >I am sure but that is what opening book responsibles for commercial chess progs >do. They try to find out which openings are bad and which are good for the >program. > >>I read once (was it you ?) that the French is a bad opening choice for computers >>maybe could we find one that has better results than others with this defense >>? > >Such a difference will always be found in each opening. But I think French and >Kings Indian are 2 openings that won't be played well at least for the next 5 >years. can you post some positions in french or Kings indian when you find that programs do mistakes? I am more optimistic then you about the next 5 years maybe there is even now a program that can play well these positions. I assume that you did not test all the programs so it is interesting to discuss about these positions. 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.