Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 13:05:26 05/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2005 at 13:43:07, Robin Smith wrote: >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 I'm not, but backsolving unless someone _really knows_ what they are _doing_ will produce meaningless results. I think Alan is a bit overreactive, but he has valid points and they should be considered seriously. 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.