Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 21:29:23 04/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2005 at 16:57:48, chandler yergin wrote: >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! > >Sorry Tony, even FENG-HSIUNG HSU refers to it in his Book, >"Behind Deep Blue", as Kasparov's $300,000 Gamble. > >Kasparov only had access to the Top Commercial Programs of his day. > >He had played this line himself, and knew it backards and forwards. > >Some commercial programs had specifically prohibited their Programs from playing >the Knight sac. > >Kasparov thought that Deep Blue was using an opening book from one of the >commercial programs. > >The Program of Deep Blue, was 'modified' by GM Joel Benjamin before the game.. > >Even without the mod, Deep Blue may have found the move, but Garry 'gambled' and >lost. > >It's as simple as that. > >He was not 'outplayed' he went into the line by design, with intent, >and lost. >Now if you can't accept the words of Deep Blue's designer.. >I'm sorry. Kasparov was not playing against himself and so it is impossible for him to beat himself. Even with a helpmate! Regards Tony
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.