Author: chandler yergin
Date: 09:48:29 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 00:29:23, Tony Nichols wrote: >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 If you can't understand the full explanation above, and the words of the Deep Blue designer, you need some help.
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.