Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 11:52:42 09/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2004 at 11:19:52, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On September 25, 2004 at 11:12:19, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On September 25, 2004 at 09:47:23, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On September 25, 2004 at 03:57:30, Uri Blass 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? >>>> >>>>I guess that humans cannot answer better. >>> >>>They do...ECO volums are about 80% reliable. Even if there is still a lot of >>>room for improvements this does not mean that the computers will improve theory. >>> >>>Just consider what follows: >>> >>>1. Current theory is based on more than 100 years games played by many strong >>>players also at corrispondance chess too. >>>2. Top engines do not have more chess knowledge of GMs and they do not see >>>deeper. A program looking at 18/44 see 9 full moves as average, 22 on the best >>>line and maybe 4-5 on some lines which are cut early. This is not much compared >>>to deep analysis by GMs. >>> >>>If the programs cannot use the knowledge made by strong players they need to see >>>quite deeper that they can. Of course there are positions where they look ahead >>>is already enough and on these they are dangerous players, but these are mostly >>>tactical ones or where material gain is an important factor. >>> >>>Positions where a positional compensation for given material is important are >>>not handled well unless the look ahead can see how to get back material and or a >>>mate. >>> >>>Of course weak reply can make weak moves very strong, but it depends who is the >>>opponent... >>> >>>> >>>>>2. Is 2...d6 best move for black? >>>> >>>>Again I guess that humans cannot answer. >>> >>>They gave a 80% reliable answer...the future will see this percentage raise more >>>and more... >>> >>>>Probably 2...d6 is one of some drawing moves but I cannot be sure about it. >>>> >>>>>3. Is this line best line for black? >>>>>4. What is white best move at move 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, >>>>>18, 19 and 20? >>>>>5. What are the best reply for black on those moves and the white best line? >>>>>6. How deep should a chess program need to search to give these answers? >>>>> >>>>>Uri, do you really think a chess program can give better answers (moves) than a >>>>>strong human player? >>>> >>>>I do not know. >>>>I think that in most cases they will give moves with the same quality. >>>>In some cases espacially in moves 11-20 they may give better moves if you give >>>>them a long time to analyze. >>> >>>My very many tests show that this is happening very seldom. >> >>The big question is if the engine's moves are really worse, or just different. > >Most of the time worse...a few times different. > >Most of the time worse because the horizonth effect is giving not engough >depth...a few times different because they do not follows rules as humans do and >look also moves which will be normally weak, so humans do not investigate on >them usually... > >Sandro In this case, a competent correspondence chess player should crush an engine running without human assistance. IMO a lot of people don't trust computer moves, because they often look so ugly - but in fact those moves are actually not so weak. Vas >> >>Vas >> >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Sandro
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.