Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:35:59 03/23/99
I see a few problems with current opening books -- not for people but for
computers only.
Quite likely, a GM will play an opening for strategic reasons. He may even toss
a piece to gain mobility or something of that nature. For a human GM, such a
choice is sound. For computers, most of the time it will not be sound. The
reason is that the computers do not see 20 moves down the road at all. So the
sacrifice just reduces their ability to take more tactical snacks on the way to
the accidental giant meal called checkmate. When the computer falls out of
book, it is a poor, bewildered bunny. It has the right position on the board,
but the payoff is so distant, it does not know how to benefit.
So there are proven sound openings that are simply not good for computers.
We'll call them [TOODEEPS] {or maybe [TOODIEPS] after Vincent. ;-)}
There are also buggy openings with deeply hidden tactical snares that people do
not tend to see. Computers are always looking for the poor baby sheep that
wanders from the herd just one false step. We'll call them [TRAPDOORS].
So we have these trap doors and too deep openings collected into our chess
opening books. We are skipping happily along in our opening book and smiling
about all the time we are saving, and then a door gets slammed in our face.
So what to do about it?
First we have to identify them. One way to do that is play a lot of games
against very good opposition. Unfortunately, that way is not very systematic
and it also means that you lose those games in the process.
Another way is a systematic scanning using some project like C.A.P.
I imagine that there are other ways. Stangely, I don't think having a GM look
over the openings is a solution. The strategically sound things he lets pass
may stumble a computer.
Once we found them, what do we do about it?
One thing we could do is just remove them.
Another thing is to include the correct trajectory as supplied by a computer on
long time controls or a GM.
For the trap doors, we might search for a refutation at long time controls. If
GM's do play them again and again, a refutation may exist.
Opinions? Refutations? Flabberghasted, shrieks of annoyance?
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.