Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 22:23:06 05/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2005 at 01:19:28, Robin Smith wrote: >On May 16, 2005 at 23:54:43, Komputer Korner wrote: > >>Since my 5 years away from computer chess, I have noticed that Backsolving has >>spread from program to program like an unstoppable weed. Chiefly promoted by >>Mike Leahy, it now threatens to permeate computer chess the way that >>chiropractic has permeated medicine. If the lie is big enough, it is >>unstoppable. However unlike medicine, there are no unknowns in the theory of >>computer chess. The only unknowns are moves that haven't been played yet but the >>actual unplayed moves are irrelevant to our discussion of the merits of >>backsolving. Perhaps the single biggest argument against backsolving is you need >>an actual evalustion at the last node. Without an evaluation you can't >>backsolve. However why would anybody depend on the last moves of a game to >>decide what the evaluation will be at the first nodes? Remember, backsolving is >>used in conjunction with studying openings. There is a long way between the >>end of a game and the opening. So then others would argue that okay we don't >>need to backsolve the last moves, we will only backsolve all the nodes from the >>15-20th moves all the way back to the 1st moves. Isn't this studying openings >>from the wrong way? I thought studying openings was spending my time analyzing >>the first moves of chess games, not the last moves. But the backsolvers argue >>that if you know the result then you know the beginning. However you really >>do't know the result. You only know an infitessimal number of results compared >>to the total. Therefore you are wasting bytes and time taken to actually >>backsolve. don't forget that backsolvers always want every node annotated. that >>is the whole purpose of backsolving. however moves are added to the book one >>line or move at a time. You could dump other books and into your book and batch >>backsolve but most of the time you are adding one move to your book at time. if >>you have to backsolve each time, then you will be doing alot of backsolving >>over the years. If you don't backsolve everyday but instead only backsolve every >>week then you have defeated the purpose of backsolving because backsolving means >>always having every node annotated. If you don't have every node annotated then >>you are likeme and my opening book, just the critical nodes at the begiining of >>the book are annotated with all the deep lines pruned off because you will never >>get to those moves anyway because of the vast middlegame number of move choices. >> My opening book is just that, an opening book, not a complete games book >>desguised as an opening bok. But the true backsolvers will say that they prune >>the moves as well. If that is the case,then they don't need to backsolve because >>they can manually add in the annotations wherever there is a fork in the road. >>(more than 1 move choice at a node). So in the end what does backsolving >>accomplish? NOTHING................. > >Of course backsolving, like any other tool, can be misused. You point out some >potential pitfalls. However that does NOT mean that backsolving does not have >some _very_ valid uses. That you don't seem to understand these uses does not >mean they are not there. How about if you spend your time trying to understand >when and why backsolving can be a very useful tool, as many others have already >pointed out, rather then waste time trying to convince people that a screw >driver is no good for pounding nails. > >-Robin I suspect it has a very limited use, and I doubt many think about that. Terry
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.