Author: Robin Smith
Date: 10:43:07 05/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2005 at 01:23:06, Terry McCracken wrote: >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 You are correct. The same could be said about the entire field of computer chess. So what? The post by Stephen Ham: http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?425669 pointed out how very valuable backsolving is for certain purposes. Backsolving is useful for anyone who is serious about studying chess openings and developing a personal opening repertoire; anyone building a large opening repertoire data base could find backsolving very useful. If that is not something that someone is interested in, fine, but it is hardly a reason to bash the backsolving function itself. -Robin
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.