Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 12:33:55 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 15:03:09, chandler yergin wrote: >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! That too:)
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.