Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 09:11:41 09/24/04
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 Clearly, so early in the opening, any "opening book" will be stronger than an engine. Think about the amount of work that has gone into this position. The picture changes once you get to move 15 or so. Then, you'll see a lot more blunders in the theory. Look at how often Kasparov is able to find some improvement. Vas
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.