Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:30:32 09/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 1999 at 16:24:32, Gunnar Andersson wrote: >On September 28, 1999 at 09:38:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >> >> >>I don't think this is the issue. Here are some problems that have to be >>overcome: >> >>1. no "evaluation" can pick a good book move without a deep search to go >>with it. Why? Because humans can't pick good book moves in most positions >>without a lot of prior searching (done by others) to guide them. Hence the >>plethora of books like MCO, ECO, BCO, etc... > >My mistake - I referred to the program learning opening deviations using deep >searches for alternative moves to the ones actually played in the database. For >this to work out, the evaluation function must >(a) be pretty good, or otherwise a huge search depth is needed >(b) have a global interpretation, i.e. be comparable between game stages > that is doable, although I probably trust a human's "deep analysis" over a computer's, because of the difference in depth. IE I don't think there is a computer in the world that can play decently at correspondence type time controls yet... maybe one day.. >The simple scheme "find best deviation for all database positions, then negamax >entire game tree including deviations" gives extremely good results in the >domain of Othello, considerably stronger than the other opening book schemes >proposed. > without a doubt... but then don't forget how narrow othello is compared to chess in the opening... > >> >>2. frequency of play is not a good guideline in many cases, because a recent >>refutation gets swamped by all the times it was played successfully in the >>past. > >Indeed. Strong humans analyze enough games for this to be less of a factor, I >suppose. if they know you do this, it is just another source of trouble, as they will look for very popular lines with a new 'bust'.. :) > >> >>3. opening theory has many outright mistakes that are waiting to get found. >>At the highest levels of play, opening preparation is hugely important. As of >>now, computers are not good at doing this. > >Automatically searching for tactical refutations seems possible. A potential >danger would of course be that the program doesn't understand the positional >compensation the side with less material can have. > >/ Gunnar that is always the issue... ie in gambit openings for example...
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.