Author: Odd Gunnar Malin
Date: 14:14:26 03/03/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2006 at 16:46:13, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 03, 2006 at 16:24:49, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: > >>On March 03, 2006 at 13:59:27, Jay Urbanski wrote: >> >>>I'd like to get some comments on an idea that's been growing in the back of my >>>head for some time now. The problem is that of opening books. We now have two >>>open protocols for communication between engine and GUI with Winboard and UCI - >>>but every GUI has chosen to go the route of a proprietary book format - >>>presumably to lock users into that GUI. (Even Arena does this, something that >>>puzzles me since it is free) This may be good for the vendors business models, >>>but it bad for users since it limits choice. >>> >>>So what is the engine author to do? They can: >>> >>>A. Pick a GUI to support (and alienate users of other GUIs) >>>B. Make an engine book (with almost certainly less features than the GUI books) >>>C. Support all the GUIs (way too much effort, and almost certainly inconsistent >>>quality of books) >>> >>>All of these have their shortcomings, so my proposal is the establishment of an >>>open book format. The idea is that with one format option "B" could be a lot >>>more attractive, especially if enough features were put into the book >>>specification. >>> >>>A common objection to this idea is "It won't fly without support from the GUI >>>vendors, and none of them will support it". I agree none of the GUI vendors are >>>likely to support it at first (except maybe Arena?) but I contend that if enough >>>engine authors support it, *and* we could get a decent book editor/viewer >>>written so that users could view the book, tweak it, etc - it wouldn't matter >>>whether the GUI authors support it. And if it became popular enough, the GUI >>>vendors might add it as a feature due to customer demand. >>> >>>So I'd like comments/feedback/criticism from everyone. Book authors especially, >>>what features would need to be present to make it a good format? As a user I >>>would defnintely want book learning and an intuitive but flexible syntax to >>>weight moves. >>> >>>Would an existing format like Polyglot be a good starting point? Would the >>>Arena team consider donating the .ABK format as the basis? Would anyone be >>>willing to donate programming skill & time toward a decent book editor/viewer? >>> >>>Am I the only one who cares about this? :) >> >>Isn't it easier to agree on some import rules for importing pgn-files, eg. !, ?! >>etc. after the move are interpretet as the same in all gui when importing. >>ChessPartner have another system that also could be considered, it allow you to >>specify a score for each line in the pgn file. >> >>The problem I have is that I create my books as games with variations in a DB >>program (CA for me). Then I have to make all sorts of converting to be able to >>import it into the GUI I want to play with, ChessMaster, Shredder, ChessPartner >>or even Fritz. I'm maybe excentric but I usually use the GUI that was attended >>to the engine when I bought it. >> >>Maybe there is some shortcomming for the few who run engine-engine matches, but >>for the big bunch that use the programs main feature it is realy enough with the >>few scoring you get from a pgn-file (??,?,?!,<none>,!,!!). If the GUI in >>addition have the ability to import Black and White into a repertoire for the >>engineplayer so you can use a single book for both color when training, I think >>all may needs should be taken care of. >> >>Odd Gunnar > >Suppose that a move is marked !! but your engine loses when choosing that move >ten times in a row (a very real possibility if it is a good move but your engine >does not know the plan). Wouldn't it be nice to have a book format that >understands statistical inferences and knows it ought to switch to something >else? Ten game in same line? wouldn't that take a year to come tru if the book have a few lines. If the !! are missplaced you can easely correct it and import it again to each gui. If you realy want to practice against the line the engine lose, why want you the gui to avoid this? Neither the gui or the engine have any soul so I don't think they care. Else I'm a fan of a good position learning, designed to give variation to the player even if he start from a middle- or endgame position. I undestand from the other post that the main focus is on engine-engine games, but for me an engine is only a tool for the human-player to train or get some relaxed games from. Some scenary: You want to create a thematic tournament and need some practice, then you can create a training-book without thinking what gui the players prefere to use. Your team will play against the next opponent in the league next week, then as a captain, or trainer, you want to prepare the players for this match. You have study an opening and want some practice on this. You will enter a tournament and create a trainingbook for this based on the repertoire of your expected opponents. The !, ?? etc. is to have some control of how often each line are selected, maybe one opponent play 1.f4 and 5 usually start with 1.e4, of course you want the engine to play the 1.e4 line mostly because there would be more lines in there. Odd Gunnar
This page took 0.01 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.