Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 16:10:17 02/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1999 at 18:49:48, Laurence Chen wrote: >On February 23, 1999 at 17:04:46, odell hall wrote: > >>Hi CCC >> >> Recently a friend and I decided to play a friendly six game match between his >>rebel10(amd233 64megs), and my Hiarcs6 (Cyrix233 16megs). Unfortunately what >>started out a friendly compitition turned into quite a heated argument. My >>friend has what I believe to be a rediculous notion that computers should not >>play with opening books. After a debate about the pro's and con's off playing >>computer vs computer chess with/without books on we decided on a small >>compromise. Our compromise was that after our computers reached move 10, in our >>game we would then turn the books off, so that white on his 11th move would be >>playing on it's own without assistance from a book. My friends main reason's >>for not wanting a book are that he thinks: 1. It is not a true test of a >>programs strength when it plays with a book 2. How well a program plays the >>opening is part of it's chess strength 3.Games tend to be boring with the books >>on. My position in defense of opening books is that if we leave off the book >>then we ignore a part of the program. It almost like saying that I as an A >>player would be better than a Master if I could negate his Memory! Much of the >>dispute stems from my friend trusting the computers evaluation of a opening >>position out of book over Centuries of Human expierence and Learning! I think >>the reason computers are given opening books is because they do not understand >>the opening and need guidance. Anyway the dispute started over game 4 of our >>match where Hiarcs6 as white made his first non-book move, In keeping in the >>spirit of our agreement I tourned my hiarcs book off at this position >> >> >>r1bqkb1r/5p1p/p1np4/1p1Npp2/4P3/N7/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - id HIARCS - rebel 10 >>and233 gam; bm e4f5; >> >> >>here hiarcs played 11. exf5 on it's own without book assistance. Glancing out >>rebel10 evaution of the position (-74) my friend was hot and wanted to start the >>game all over! He felt that it was unfair! I take issue with this because this >>is a very well known opening position and is theoritically equal, although it is >>possible that a computer program would not understand it at all (Exactly whty it >>is absolutely neccessary for computers to have books!) Anyway rebel completely >>mishandled the position to lose horribly here is the complete game. >> >> >>[Event "?"] >>[Site "?"] >>[Date "??.??.????"] >>[Round "?"] >>[White "HIARCS"] >>[Black "rebel 10 and233 gam"] >>[Result "*"] >>[WhiteElo "?"] >>[BlackElo "?"] >>[ECO "B33"] >> >>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 >>a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5 11. exf5 b4 12. Nc4 Bxf5 13. Bd3 Be6 >>14. Qf3 Bxd5 15. Qxd5 Rc8 16. f4 Qh4+ 17. g3 Qd8 18. O-O-O b3 19. axb3 >>Nb4 20. Qb7 Rb8 21. Qa7 Ra8 22. Qe3 * >> >> >> >> >> >>Who is Right? I am saying that the game was completely fair and Rebel loss in a >>well known theoretically equal position. His position was that the Game should >>have been started over after move eleven because Rebel's opening book put it at >>a handicap >I believe from my observations of games played by Rebel, it needs help from >opening books. Rebel chess tends to play badly without its opening books, and >get into "bad" positions. This observation was made from the match played by J. >Walker between CM5500 and Rebel 10, and Rebel lost the 10 game match quite badly >because CM 5500 played moves which took Rebel out of the book quite early. So >your friend argument is pointless. It is like saying that GM should not prepare >their openings against their opponents, it is the fine understanding of the >chess openings which gives the GM an edge over their fellow chess masters, not >memorization of opening moves or variations. >Some chess engines will play better than other chess engines without opening >books, so to play matches without opening books is not a good idea. I believe >that the true strength of a chess engine is the ability to stir the game towards >a position in which it excells truly. The moral is never fall in love with a >particular engine, but use the engine as tools to help or to improve one's >understanding of the game. Let the engine be our guide not our master. My games played against Rebel 10 with altered books and mainly without books and I have found Rebel 10 lacking greatly. Without its opening book I find Rebel 10 to be somewhat a weak engine. Rebel also gets into time trouble alot of the times makes bad moves due to lack of time. But with its books Rebel 10 plays a mean game of chess. But from pure chess engine power so far. CM6K and Shredder 2 have given Rebel 10 quite a beating without opening books. And with opening books CM6K is still ahead, but Rebel is beating Shredder2.
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.