Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:05:52 09/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2004 at 12:09:00, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On September 23, 2004 at 13:31:55, Sandro Necchi 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. >> >>No, this is today totally wrong in at least 95% cases. >> >>It depends on the positions, but in some positions they should search at 64/108 >>to be able to do it and I do not think any chess program is able to reach those >>depths now. >> >>I have made several tests running fast harware for more than one day and the >>moves and the evaluation they got was poor compared to real ones. > >Depends on what "real ones" means. Humans also make mistakes. Yes, but I was referring to deep analysis of a position, not games. Some times deep analysis takes days, months or even longer...otherwise is not deep...:-) > >I'd guess that a normal human can capably assist a top engine in 20% or so of >all positions. Today situation is that the computers do better in some specific things and worse in other. Knowing this well I know how much I can rely on them and their analysis. Sandro > >Vas > >> >>Maybe what you state will be true in 20 years from now, but not before. >>> >>>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. >> >>No, if the book will keep up with theory evolution and will be "adjusted" to the >>new strength level... >>> >>>Uri >>>Uri >> >>Sandro
This page took 0.01 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.