Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 06:21:35 09/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2004 at 08:33:39, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On September 25, 2004 at 01:56:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On September 24, 2004 at 13:05:52, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>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...:-) >> >>An example: >> >>after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 can computers answer >>these questions: >> >>1. Is this the best line for white? >>2. Is 2...d6 best move for black? >>3. Is this line best line for black? > >It's true that a human, armed with thousands of games and thousands of hours of >analysis of these basic positions, can answer these three questions much better >than any engine. Further, a human can be aware of the strengths of the engine >and tailor the choice appropriately. > >>4. What is white best move at move 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, >>18, 19 and 20? > >As you get deeper and deeper into the opening, the theoretical moves start to >get weaker and weaker. > >Let me give an example from a game I played a few months ago: > >Rajlich-Haba, Bundesliga, Erfurt 3.23.04 > >1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. c5 Be7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Bd3 >b6 9. b4 a5 10. Na4 Nfd7 11. h4 h6 12. Rh3 > >[D] rnbq1rk1/3nbpp1/1p2p2p/p1Pp4/NP1P3P/3B1N1R/P4PP1/R1BQK3 b Q - 0 12 > >This position was supposed to be good for white. IIRC some sources give cryptic >stuff like "+/- (Botvinnik)". Probably based on a game from 1968. Problem is - nobody had really checked it - until >my opponent. In fact black is winning here: > >12. .. e5! 13. Bxh6 Bf6 14. Rg3 e4 15. Ng5 exd3 16. Qh5 g6 > >and white's fun is over. > >This is just one blatant example, there are thousands of others. A bad example. You don´t have to play 13.Bxh6. What about 13.dxe5 bxc5 14.Bxh6 ? Therefore Michael Adams move 12...Bf6 makes some sense. [Event "Lugano ol (Men)"] [Site "Lugano"] [Date "1968.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Keller, Dieter"] [Black "Pomar Salamanca, Arturo"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B14"] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "1968.10.17"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. c5 O-O 8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. Na4 Nfd7 11. h4 h6 12. Rh3 e5 13. Bxh6 Bf6 14. Rg3 e4 15. Ng5 Nc6 16. Qh5 exd3 17. Bxg7 Re8+ 18. Kf1 Bxg7 19. Qxf7+ Kh8 20. Qh5+ Kg8 21. Qh7+ Kf8 22. Ne6+ Rxe6 23. Rxg7 1-0 [Event "Oakham"] [Site "Oakham"] [Date "1990.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Blatny, Pavel"] [Black "Adams, Michael"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B14"] [WhiteElo "2510"] [BlackElo "2555"] [PlyCount "63"] [EventDate "1990.03.??"] 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. d4 cxd5 5. Nc3 e6 6. c5 Be7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. Na4 Nfd7 11. h4 h6 12. Rh3 Bf6 13. Rg3 e5 14. Bxh6 e4 15. Ng5 exd3 16. Qxd3 Re8+ 17. Kd2 Nf8 18. Nxb6 axb4 19. Nxf7 Kxf7 20. Qf3 g6 21. Nxa8 Nc6 22. Be3 Bf5 23. h5 Be4 24. Qf4 Qxa8 25. Rh3 g5 26. Qc7+ Re7 27. Qd6 Rd7 28. Qh2 Qa3 29. Rd1 Qb2+ 30. Ke1 Nxd4 31. Bxd4 Bxd4 32. Rb3 0-1
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.