Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 08:08:54 09/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2004 at 09:21:35, Drexel,Michael wrote: >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. 13. Bxh6 is the only principled move. 13. dxe5 looks really ugly, for example 13. .. Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxh3 15. gxh3 (15. Nxb6 Bf6) Bf6 16. Bb2 Bxe5 17. Bxe5 Re8 18. f4 bxc5 19. bxc5 Nc6 and white will suffer for at most a draw. There might be some improvement, but IMO white needs to be consistent and go after the black king. BTW we transposed to the Blatny-Adams game (although I didn't know it at the time). I reached the position after 18. Nxb6 in my analysis of 16. Qxd3. [D] rnbqrnk1/5pp1/1N3b1B/p1Pp2N1/1P1P3P/3Q2R1/P2K1PP1/R7 b - - 0 18 Here 18. .. Ra7 seemed good enough for black, but Adams came up with a very nice lights-out move. Vas > >[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.