Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Martin Brown wrote:
I agree it is a shame that one of the top engines has not been run
against a GM sans book.

What does `without book' mean. How can you stop me including the
opening book as part of the executable rather than as a separate data
file? Why is it acceptable to tell the program `A rook is worth five
pawns' but not tell it `In the initial position, you should play
1.d4'?

I propose limiting the opening book to under 10 moves to simulate human-like
play conditions. Otherwise one could imagine a GM team creating a super
opening book that virtually assured the machine an advantage with White and
equality or better with Black, with all moves drawn from a table.

That might still be an interesting undertaking, but I suspect it would
have to be done by machine at 10 moves or 20ply the book with an
average branching factor of 4 would require over 4TB of storage. Well
beyond anything that would be humanly checkable, but not beyond a
distributed computational effort. Or did you mean out to only 10ply ?

top levels players forget moves, mix up move orders, and prefer slightly
inferior positions in which they feel comfortable but which are practically
forced wins for the computer.

I'm not sure if I would put it that strongly. Kramnik has demostrated
considerable finesse in holding Fritz10 to draws in the match. He
clearly has a better temperment suited to playing against a machine
than Kasparov. The win with the Najdorf was very classy. And his only
loss in this match was careless but did not affect his play in later
games (impressive).

Regards,
Martin Brown