Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:40:15 02/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 1999 at 10:32:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: [snip] >> >>To find out, I think one would have to compare 10 0 games from the same human >>opponent vs. 5 5 games over a large number of games. Comparing 5 0 and 5 5 >>doesn't make sense. Granted, that in a 5 5 game of over 60 moves each, the human >>would have more time in which to play and would theoretically have a slight >>advantage because of it. But I truly wonder how many times this happens and how >>many times the human wins because it happens. Do you have statistics in this >>area Robert? > > >I have about 100,000 games that Crafty has played. I'll see what I can dig >out of them... > > Thanks. :) [snip] >> >>Ok, but having a program play a different (or possibly random) opening each time >>(even without recognizing who the opponent is) on a chess server is probably a >>good thing. >> >>KarinsDad > > >This is not so easy. Most opening lines turn out to be bad, if your book comes >from PGN games. IE in _any_ opening line you choose to follow, it is almost >guaranteed that at 1/2 of the positions, there are good and there are _losing_ >book moves to play. If you just choose randomly, you just about guarantee >yourself to play one of these in every game. > >It is very difficult to discover what is good and bad. I guess this is a point I was missing (in this latter part of the discusion). I know that some moves are perfectly fine (i.e. 1. c6 in response to 1. e4), however, I did not consider that many moves down the road, it becomes more and more unclear as to whether a given line is truly ok or not (I guess the "not ok" moves are sometimes more obvious, but not necessarily). My idea above was to play a different early move to get into a different line in order to make tools such as learning more helpful, but I guess this has to be considered at each move in the game, especially when still in book. However, isn't the point of learning software to go through the entire book (eventually) and find out what works and what doesn't? If so, it would seem that random moves (or apparently random moves) throughout the book would be the way to help ensure that the entire book was "checked". KarinsDad > Which is why 'book >learning' is critical. Or else a narrow book which can be predictable.
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.