Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:27:00 09/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
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 don't believe that part. There are plenty of extremely deep book openings that computers can not hope to follow by themselves today. Maybe in another 20-50 years they might, but not a prayer today. There are clearly _some_ positions where a computer can do just fine. But there are at least as many where it will fall flat.. > >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
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.