Author: chandler yergin
Date: 12:03:09 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 12:44:11, Terry McCracken wrote: >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. He beat himself!
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.