Author: James T. Walker
Date: 19:53:39 02/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1999 at 17:04:46, odell hall wrote: >Hi CCC > <snip> <snip> >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 Hello Odell, I wasn't doing anything tonight so I decided to throw my two cents worth in and hope I don't offend anyone at the same time. Playing with no book at all will certainly favor the program that has a good "Opening" program. I think part of the problem with this is that programmers today have come to rely heavily on their own "Tailored" opening books. They have left the idea of tweaking the program further to give it the ability to figure out openings on it's own. Rebel I think is one of these programs. It has a large opening book of over 32,000 variations designed to get it throught this phase of the game. Some programmers at one time or another have spent more time on this aspect of the opening to make their programs better able to cope with unforseen moves in the opening. It's just two different ways of handling this phase of the game. The results are obvious. Some programs play better without their opening book than others. Both types have also presumably tailored the opening books to suit the way their program plays. That is avoid lines it doesn't play well and steer toward lines that suit it's style. Trying to make up for this problem by making one program play with the others opening book might seem to be a solution but the problem is now you are testing which program handles the other programs book best. Something neither programmer designed his program for. This takes me to my theory. A chess program is a complete package. If you want to find out which is best, you have to play them as they were designed. Then you find out which is the best designed program without outside interference. An engine is the heart and soul of a program but it is not the whole. Well, I've typed myself to sleep. So good night. :>) Jim Walker
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.