Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 02:28:08 09/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2004 at 04:34:50, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On September 23, 2004 at 01:44:08, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 23, 2004 at 01:31:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On September 22, 2004 at 06:58:33, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>On September 22, 2004 at 05:56:02, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: >>>> >>>>>It is not a benefit for a weak engine as it will also probably play weak moves >>>>>in the middlegame which will be properly exploited by the stronger engine. Dont >>>>>u think so. >>>> >>>>it's not the issue whether a strong engine will beat a weak engine. that is so >>>>by definition :-) >>>> >>>>the question is: take 2 engines of approximately equal playing strength, give >>>>one of them a good book, and look what happens in a match. >>>> >>>>i believe that for 2 weak engines the difference will be larger in the match >>>>result than for 2 strong engines. >>>> >>>>now we only need somebody to test this hypothesis :-) >>>> >>>>cheers >>>> martin >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>>I made very many tests and I can make statements on this matter: >>> >>>1. A program stronger 150 points than another will win nearly all games no >>>matter how bad it comes out from the openings. >>>2. The stronger the program is the most important the book is. Of course weak >>>lines should be checked and removed to avoid loosing positions. >>>3. The weaker the program is the less the book is important. The reason is that >>>it will find very many positions where it does not know how to play them. >>> >>>P.N. Do not take the Shredder - Hydra example to state the opposite, because I >>>knew we had some weak lines in the book, but for personal reasons could not work >>>on them. >>> >>>Of course anybody can state the opposite, but my statements are supported by >>>thousand of games and more than 100 engines/prototype testing at all level and >>>with very many different harware. >>> >>>I have no time and williness to do deeper into these matters, so it is up to you >>>to believe me or not. >>> >>>Sandro >> >>At the very weak level books are not important because the program that get >>better position cannot use it. >> >>At the very high level books are also not important because the program can find >>better moves by itself. >> >>I think that books becomes more important when the level become stronger but >>later becomes less important when the level become stronger and the only >>question is if the top programs got the level when it starts to become less >>important or still did not get that level. >> >>Uri >>Uri > >Many of your top programs are not even able to find the only move that makes >sense in the follwing position on their own at tournament time control on a >single processor: > >[D] rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/5n2/4N3/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3 > >3...d6 is the _only_ move. > >I assume you can figure out yourself why Qe7,Sc6,d5 or Nxe4 are worse. > >Michael A very neat position to show inferior knowledge in chess engines but it still doesn't prove anything in the general case. You can find as many positions with an engine having a hopeless position from a bad bookline, without having a chance to repair. So we have the choice of repairing the evaluation or repairing the book. There are no perfect books either. /Peter
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.