Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 12:16:52 09/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2004 at 14:52:42, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >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. I agree. > >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. Of course not so weak, but a GM would see that they are not the best and increase the advantage move after move...normally a GM makes at least 2 mistakes and some minor ones in a game, but on correspondance chess it would be different... Sandro > >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.