Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 5th 06, 10:21 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Default Chess computers without opening book

I had a discussion today about chess computers and their reliance on
opening books. I asserted that a human GM playing Deep Fritz 10
without its opening book would win most of the time.

Would anyone care to agree or disagree? I'd appreciate any elaboration
as to why, either way.


-td

  #2   Report Post  
Old December 5th 06, 10:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
Default Chess computers without opening book


Timid Demagogue wrote:

I had a discussion today about chess computers and their reliance on
opening books. I asserted that a human GM playing Deep Fritz 10
without its opening book would win most of the time.

Would anyone care to agree or disagree? I'd appreciate any elaboration
as to why, either way.


-td


First of all it depends upon which GM. Second, the sheer *calculating
power* of today's software/hardware is so great that (it has been
argued) removing the openings books doesn't necessarily make very much
difference... frequently "book" moves are overruled by engines on
account of their being tactically unsound...

-mh

  #3   Report Post  
Old December 5th 06, 10:39 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Default Chess computers without opening book

On Dec 5, 5:30 pm, "Mark Houlsby" wrote:

First of all it depends upon which GM. Second, the sheer *calculating
power* of today's software/hardware is so great that (it has been
argued) removing the openings books doesn't necessarily make very much
difference... frequently "book" moves are overruled by engines on
account of their being tactically unsound...

-mh


Your first point is a given-there is always the human element to
consider. Regarding your second point, if a book move with years of
theory and application behind it is considered unsound by the computer,
why isn't the theory being rewritten for everyone? Either way, if
removing the opening book won't make a difference, I don't understand
why they are used in Man vs. Machine events in the first place.

-td

  #4   Report Post  
Old December 5th 06, 10:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
Default Chess computers without opening book


Timid Demagogue wrote:

On Dec 5, 5:30 pm, "Mark Houlsby" wrote:

First of all it depends upon which GM. Second, the sheer *calculating
power* of today's software/hardware is so great that (it has been
argued) removing the openings books doesn't necessarily make very much
difference... frequently "book" moves are overruled by engines on
account of their being tactically unsound...

-mh


Your first point is a given-there is always the human element to
consider. Regarding your second point, if a book move with years of
theory and application behind it is considered unsound by the computer,
why isn't the theory being rewritten for everyone?


It is. Read an Informator sometime.

Either way, if
removing the opening book won't make a difference, I don't understand
why they are used in Man vs. Machine events in the first place.

-td


It doesn't have to be (which is kinda my point). Its being used confers
more of an advantage to a human than to a machine... familiar
territory, and all that.... if a machine gets into unfamiliar
territory, it can calculate its way out... better than a human...

-mh

  #5   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 02:25 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,305
Default Chess computers without opening book

Timid Demagogue wrote:
I had a discussion today about chess computers and their reliance on
opening books. I asserted that a human GM playing Deep Fritz 10
without its opening book would win most of the time.

Would anyone care to agree or disagree? I'd appreciate any elaboration
as to why, either way.


-td


That depends, will the GM be allowed to use *his* opening book?

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/


  #6   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 06:58 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2003
Posts: 41
Default Chess computers without opening book

Mark Houlsby wrote:

It doesn't have to be (which is kinda my point). Its being used confers
more of an advantage to a human than to a machine... familiar
territory, and all that.... if a machine gets into unfamiliar
territory, it can calculate its way out... better than a human...


Them not being used would lead to games that drift into unfamiliar and
"weird" positions soon. Since such matches have a commercial goal and
must please an audience, this is undesirable.

The Mainz Chess Classic has had a few Chess960 (Fischerrandom) matches
between humans and computers. Obviously no opening books there.

--
GCP
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 10:06 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Chess computers without opening book

Timid Demagogue wrote:
I had a discussion today about chess computers and their reliance on
opening books. I asserted that a human GM playing Deep Fritz 10
without its opening book would win most of the time.


I don't see where you find the evidence for such a strong assertion.
Deep Fritz has just beaten Kramnik +2-0=4. Kramnik would have had to
have won at least four more games than he did in order to `win most of
the time', which is a massive turn-around. I find it hard to believe
that opening theory would make such a big difference, as the evalu-
ation functions these days are usually programmed to avoid closed
positions anyway. Also, the opening book to some extent benefits the
GM by him to use his book knowledge deeper into the game.

Note also that, when Hydra beat Michael Adams +5-0=1, it was using a
relatively shallow opening book -- only to move 10, as I recall.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Broken Sadistic Windows (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a graphical user interface but it
wants to hurt you and it doesn't work!
  #8   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 11:07 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,105
Default Chess computers without opening book


"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Timid Demagogue wrote:
I had a discussion today about chess computers and their reliance on
opening books. I asserted that a human GM playing Deep Fritz 10
without its opening book would win most of the time.


I don't see where you find the evidence for such a strong assertion.
Deep Fritz has just beaten Kramnik +2-0=4. Kramnik would have had to
have won at least four more games than he did in order to `win most of
the time', which is a massive turn-around. I find it hard to believe
that opening theory would make such a big difference, as the evalu-
ation functions these days are usually programmed to avoid closed
positions anyway. Also, the opening book to some extent benefits the
GM by him to use his book knowledge deeper into the game.


Don't forget that in this match, Kramnik was able to see the Fritz
screen while Fritz was in book.



  #9   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 11:43 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,015
Default Chess computers without opening book


Timid Demagogue wrote:

I had a discussion today about chess computers and their reliance on
opening books. I asserted that a human GM playing Deep Fritz 10
without its opening book would win most of the time.


The "reliance" of computers on opening books is not so great as it once
was. Modern engines will play a pretty good opening line using their
internal evaluation function. It just means that they incur a time
penalty in the opening when the human plays quickly from memorised
opening lines.

You can try an engine with a book against another stronger engine
without one if you set it up right. The book appears to provide at most
a 100 ELO point advantage - and only then in longer time control games.

Would anyone care to agree or disagree? I'd appreciate any elaboration
as to why, either way.


It will depend a bit on the time controls, and also on the computing
power available to DeepFritz, but provided it can see to around
20-22ply per move in realtime it would be effectively unbeatable except
possibly by Kramnik book or no book. NB Kramnik was able to use the
same opening book for reference as the program in his recent match.

Regards,
Martin Brown

  #10   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 11:50 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
Default Chess computers without opening book


Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:

It doesn't have to be (which is kinda my point). Its being used confers
more of an advantage to a human than to a machine... familiar
territory, and all that.... if a machine gets into unfamiliar
territory, it can calculate its way out... better than a human...


Them not being used would lead to games that drift into unfamiliar and
"weird" positions soon. Since such matches have a commercial goal and
must please an audience, this is undesirable.

The Mainz Chess Classic has had a few Chess960 (Fischerrandom) matches
between humans and computers. Obviously no opening books there.

--
GCP


Yes. Good points Gian-Carlo, thanks. It's true that this Kramnik match
was about selling Fritz.

The Adams-Hydra match, on the other hand, was not about selling Hydra,
so the conditions can vary, as you know. I suppose that the OP was
talking about "no-holds-barred" matches against machines' being
unfeasible from now on, and she may well be correct.

Certainly machine vs. machine matches *already* have a tendency to
reach the "weird" positions which you mentioned.

How long before Chess960 opening theory reaches the point at which it
spawns its own theory, and therefore its own opening books, I wonder?
:-)

OT p.s. Does Sjeng/Deep Sjeng have any events soon?

--
MH

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The cheating IBM Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 148 July 22nd 06 02:52 PM
The cheating IBM Chess One rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 120 July 22nd 06 02:52 PM
Chess variant email pre-sets, by Mats Winther Mats Winther rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 June 16th 06 07:26 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 March 7th 06 05:30 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 19th 06 05:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017