Author: chandler yergin
Date: 15:54:41 05/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2005 at 16:05:26, Terry McCracken wrote: >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. Not to a Chess PLayer! Obviously you didn't understand Hams Post either! 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.