Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:05:07 05/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2005 at 12:00:13, Dann Corbit wrote: Wow, your PII-233Mhz uptime statistics are most impressive! Vincent >On May 17, 2005 at 11:40:14, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 16, 2005 at 23:06:29, Darrel Briley wrote: >> >>The main problem by letting computers invent their own openings is that todays >>programs without opening book still are utmost beginners. >> >>It is like a race car with bicycle tires. The idea behind this would be that >>less resistance to the ground allows a higher speed of driving, as the car has >>to do it itself, instead of let the slicks work for it. >> >>In theory it would be able to do 400 kilometers an hour still, but you slip at >>every corner, most importantly the first one, and your starting position is real >>bad as the start goes very slow thanks to lacking grip. >> >>A big effort has been done by Dann Corbitt a few years ago with his >>Crappy Analysis Project. If i may recall the idea was that a book reinforced >>with scores from chess engines at all nodes, would create a good book. >> >>If i remember well i was one of the few directly writing down here it was not >>going to work. Several commercial authors also were a bit negative surprised >>that it worked *that* bad. The project died a slow death. Silent, out of sight, >>as the resulting book didn't kick butt. > >A killer book was never a goal of the CAP project. You can read the FAQ: >ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/Chess%20Analysis%20Project%20FAQ.htm > >The CAP project is still going strong (in fact, it has never stopped). Convekta >uses (and now creates) the CAP data. >http://www.convekta.com/ > >>In short, there is big statistical evidence that every book, without human >>intervention is sucking more than a book with human intervention. > >No argument there. > >>That said i hope you realize one shouldn't confuse this with book learning. Book >>learning is very effective in that you can repeat your last win and can avoid >>losing/drawing in the same manner. >> >>But trusting the computer on his own from the first move, is a kind of suicidal >>thing to do. >> >>So to speak the computer is 1800 rated in opening, it's 2400 rated in >>middlegame, it's 2200 in endgame and it's tactical 4000 rated. Of course never >>making a tactical mistake soon lays the overall border to 2500-2600 when the >>weak chain called opening is removed by using a book. >> >>>On May 16, 2005 at 21:28:21, Komputer Korner wrote: >>> >>>>Now that chess engines are rated equal to top GMs, why can't some chess >>>>programmer write a script to enable a copy of his engine Ex: >>>>Fritz,Shredder,Crafty to analyze every position (where there is more than 1 move >>>>choice in the book) let us say for 2 minutes each starting at the beginning of >>>>the book. Then it would automatically put in the numerical annotation in the >>>>opening book. After a couple of months or so, X number of plies of opening moves >>>>would be completely annotated(depending on the size of the book. Or better yet, >>>>the openings could be split up and one computer each could be used on each >>>>opening and then at the end they could be combined. I am assuming that the books >>>>and combined master book would catch all transpositions like the ChessBase and >>>>Bookup opening books do. Then the programmer or company could sell or give away >>>>this annotated master book which the customer could change with new information. >>>> Or has this already been done. I know that there are lots of small books that >>>>have been done but what about God's opening book? >>> >>> >>> >>>I've been thinking for some time along similar lines. Why isn't the opening >>>book treating in a similar fashion to the hash tables (I.E. the final book >>>position annotated with the score, depth, result) and these annotations would >>>not be discarded from game to game, but would be maintained and built upon, in >>>this way it seems there could be continual improvement on the engine's book. At >>>first only the final book position would/should be annotated, but in subsequent >>>usage, additional moves/positions could be added to the book; one ply at a time. >>>If such "book" parameters could be adjusted by the user so that an already seen >>>position would only be analyzed if it did not meet a certain depth/result, I >>>think it would be invaluable in improving a poor book, and could make an already >>>strong book better. I realize this would entail a book becoming larger, but with >>>today's storage soloutions this doesn't seem to be such a major consideration. >>>Taken one step further... >>> >>>I'd like to build a PC that would be a dedicated chess computer, and ideally the >>>program's book handling would operate as already mentioned, but in addition to >>>this, idle time on the computer would be spent analyzing the book, and the games >>>the machine has played. This could be focused by the user, or could operate >>>fairly autonomously, at the discretion of said user through selectable menus. >>> >>>I'm not a programmer, so I'd appreciate any input/thoughts on the utility of >>>such an approach. I realize that book learning already does some of this >>>already, but the ability to add moves/positions to the book isn't currently a >>>feature that I'm aware of in any program. Also, the ability to have the >>>computer do analysis during idle hours, either automatically, or through a >>>user's guidance (but still largely automated, so as to alleviate some of the >>>tedious attention to detail required) would be a wonderful feature IMHO. >>> >>>It's not hard to envision other aspects of such a system. The engine would be >>>continually tailoring the book to maximize its own strengths, and to minimize >>>its weaknesses. Also, if the program had the capability to recognize unique >>>opponents, and to keep a record of the opponent's openings and results, the book >>>learning would be so much more effective. Any thoughts?
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.