Author: Paul Richards
Date: 16:33:08 07/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 1999 at 13:53:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Don't forget the 'math'. 99.9999999999999% of opening theory does _not_ follow >moves like 1. a3 or 1. h3. So if a GM starts out like that, then the computer >is going to be on its own. And there is no way to make a book wide enough to >cover that... Forgive my ignorance, but why not? I was under the impression that Mr. Corbit's project was doing just that. In fact it seems conceptually rather easy to negate this aspect of anti-computer chess. Gather whatever theoretical and statistical data exists on such offbeat openings, and in the absence of such data crunch the resulting positions at suitably long time controls and build a book response. All you need is a big enough book and time to do the analysis. The book storage is just a matter of hard drive space, and the time to do the analysis would be easy with a large group of volunteers. I'm happy to let Mr. Corbit correct me if I'm wrong, but in a nutshell I believe this is already being done. Having a team to do analysis also lends itself to some pretty heavy-duty learning, in that rather than just flagging moves as bad, if the program gets itself into any bad situations or gets taken out of book early, you can produce alternate lines or fill in any missing areas rather quickly. Such a book would just keep getting better with time, and I think in time would effectively negate this particular anti-computer tactic. Instead of getting the program out of book the GM might find himself either in an unenviably silly position or else transposed into a normal opening with a bad move order or a lost tempo.
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.