Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 09:44:11 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 10:33:02, Stephen Ham wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 06:01:31, Tony Nichols wrote: > >>On April 22, 2005 at 05:51:29, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On April 22, 2005 at 03:39:06, Tony Nichols wrote: >>> >>>>The programs perform as well as they do because they are very good at tactics >>>>and most importantly they have huge opening books. I know this is a >>>>controversial topic but if we really want to test the strenght of programs, then >>>>have them play against strong humans without opening books. >>> >>>I consider the opening book of current top programs as one of their main >>>weaknesses, and I am surprised that this argument is so popular. >>> >>>Even a player of about 1800-2000 will often know (important) things about his >>>pet line he won't find in any computer opening book, not to talk about titled >>>players or grandmasters. And the books also contain blunders the program would >>>never play on its own. >>> >>>Opening books are still useful, but the opening book of an Anand, Kasparov or >>>Kramnik is something completely different. >> >>Hi, Peter >>This is a complex subject. On one hand opening books are a huge benefit to >>computers when playing against humans. Most of the time they keep the engines >>from getting a very bad middlegame. On the other hand bad book moves can kill >>the best engine. I personally can attest to not knowing anything about my pet >>lines:) Seriously, In my experience many masters play poor openings. So overall >>a book is definitely a benfit for computers. >>Regards >>Tony > >Hello Tony, > >I think Peter is totally correct here, while your claims are illogical (you even >contradict yourself). > >Your claims are: > >1) "...they keep the engines from getting a very bad middlegame." Not always, >Tony. Engines still reach bad middlegames with their books. Or, as is more >common, the engine reaches a middlegame that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't >understand it. For example, the position may involve an IQP. But unless the >engine has been programmed with the heuristics for how to play such positions, >then it won't know whether the IQP is an asset or a liability. It also won't >know that in general, the player with the IQP should use it to generate an >attack now, while the other player should think long-term, exchange pieces and >play for the endgame. But had the engine been allowed to calculate its own moves >without a book, then it would more likely reach a position that suits the >engine. The offset is time. I remember when ChessMaster 6 went one-on-one with >other engines of its day. ChessMaster's book was extremely shallow and it was >often on its own after 5-6 moves. Instead its opposition had opening books that >went for another 15-20 moves. Yet ChessMaster experienced no clear impairment in >having to take the time to calculate its moves versus engines that played theirs >instantaneously. > >2) "On the other hand bad book moves can kill the best engine." Tony, you've >just contradicted your #1 statement. Indeed, some opening books have huge holes >in them. Hiarcs has this problem. And when its book doesn't have holes, then the >moves may not be especially good anyway. > >Tony, opening books for engines are merely the compiled moves of human players. >GM's generally already have memorized and comprehended these moves, and often >have improvements prepared. Engines understand nothing and instead play what >they are compelled to by their books. They may not have the heuristics to >comprehend the positions once they arrive at them. They haven't prepared any >improvements. They don't keep up with the changes in opening theory like strong >humans do. In short, the engine with a human opening book is at a disadvantage >here versus a strong human. > >So please re-read what Peter wrote, since he's correct on this issue. An >engine's book is probably more of a liability than an asset versus a strong >human. > >All the best, > >Steve You're kidding right? Take the book away and the program has a bad handicap against a strong player. Kasparov was beaten with book knowledge by Deep Blue and Team.
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.