Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 13:51:11 02/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2005 at 11:36:03, Peter Berger wrote: >On February 23, 2005 at 06:52:07, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>2) Surely there is some difference in level, but how much? I have yet to see >>even one statistic that suggests such a difference for any two equally-matched >>engines. There are plenty of experiments that could show this, so it's at least >>suspicious that it hasn't happened yet. > >That's an interesting idea. Yes, I have not seen such a thing either. I know the >effect is true and can easily be more than 100 ELO when it is about engines of >different level. I don't see a very good reason why this should not work with >engines of similar level, but I have no data to support it. Ok, how about the following experiment: 1) You pick two engines of similar level, and post here 25 opening positions where you think engine A will do better, and 25 opening positions where you think engine B will do better. 2) I'll run the 100 games on my computers. You won't know in advance the time control I use, or which versions of the two programs I use. Good luck getting 66 points :) > >>> >>>> >>>>IMHO - an amateur engine shouldn't bother with book until let's say four years >>>>go by. At that point, some professional chess player should be hired who will >>>>start from an automatically generated book and spend some month or so making >>>>some adjustments, preferably in the range of moves 5-15. In addition to this, it >>>>may make sense to keep running the engine and "pre-computing" some results, >>>>which can be spot-checked as appropriate. This last step will especially help at >>>>fast time controls. >>>> >>>>Vas >>>> >>> >>>I don't think this approach is optimal , but it will lead to a very reasonable >>>book. >> >>So what is the optimal approach? (Aside from full-time professional chess player >>spending 60 hours a week on the book? :)) >> >>Vas > >Please allow me to be vague and add some IMHO at random points ;). If there is >something like an automated book as a starting point, it should be extremely >limitted, so that there is no risk for it to contain blunders. Ideally there >should be no line in the book the author isn't aware of. As you pointed out >yourself, there is a lot of stuff that has to be added manually anyway, e.g. >replies to uncommon openings that can be used to fool the computer ( e.g. all >kinds of unusual gambits). Although they are unlikely to come up in a tournament >they are important. The core of the repertoire should be worked out more >thoroughly than that and profit from existing human analysis, after having been >blunderchecked carefully with program. A few novelties and surprises can't hurt >either. Of course, the more is hand-checked, the better. I just don't know how realistic it is to hand-check everything. > >I don't think a full-time professional chess player is needed to do that job and >actually I am not even sure if he is the most qualified to do it, unless he gets >payed enough to take it very seriously :) . Judging from published comments of >human masters many don't really understand strength and weaknesses of >computerplayers or only in a very superficial way, although most use them >regularly of course. I am convinced that people like you or Larry Kaufman would >be better than professional chess players. > >Whether this is the optimal way I can only guess - it's what I would probably >do. Well, it's hard to argue too much here :) but really I must. You don't want a book author who has to figure everything out from scatch - you want somebody who already knows it. Of course there is a wide range - from a total beginner on one end, to Kasparov or Anand on the other end - but there is a huge jump up when you move to someone who is a chess player by profession. Vas > >Peter
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.