The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by bob » Sun May 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Adam Hair wrote:
bob wrote:
I suggest you first shut up, then look at the post by me. And look _right at the top_ where it says "Rolf wrote:"

Get it now?

My post _directly_ follows one from you. Here is the link to your post:

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 22&t=28011

Ad here is the link to my post, which _directly_ follows your post:

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 64&t=28011

And here is the top of my post which followed yours:
Bob wrote:
Rolf wrote:
MatsW wrote:The problem of opening theory in computer chess. What's the point in
measuring the opening book knowledge when arranging matches between
chess programs? By example, Deep Blue never got out of the opening
book before it was practically over in the final game against
Kasparov. Would the chess public stand up and applause if a human
player sat with an opening book in his lap, replicating the moves in
the book, and winning against the world champion? Of course not, they
would boo at him. I realize, of course, that it is a difficult
question, not the least because human players can play from memory as
well, although not nearly as good. Nevertheless, it is high time that
this practice is questioned in computer chess, at least in matches
between chess programs.


Most of us greatly enjoyed our break from this kind of nonsensical post. You apparently can't write a single post without tossing an insult at Deep Blue. Deep blue. If my memory is correct, and this can be checked by looking at the DB log for game 6 for anyone interested, they were out of book around move 10. The game went to move 20 or something, The game was not "practically over" at that point.
So, my conclusion is, whatever you are on, you need to take _less_ of, and whatever you are not on, you need more of it. My post is directly addressed to you, not to anyone else. It directly follows your post, not anybody elses. And it directly quotes your post, in addition to the one you replied to.

If you can't follow that, then perhaps you should go back to where you have been for the past month or two and stay there..
Clearly the confusion here is who were you directing this statement
towards:

" Most of us greatly enjoyed our break from this kind of nonsensical post. You apparently can't write a single post without tossing an insult at Deep Blue. Deep blue. If my memory is correct, and this can be checked by looking at the DB log for game 6 for anyone interested, they were out of book around move 10. The game went to move 20 or something, The game was not "practically over" at that point.

I have seen GM players play 30 moves before they stop to think in a game. Do they cheat? "

In the quote box above, it is clear that you were responding to Rolf.
Yet, I have to say that your post
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 64&t=28011
seems to imply that Rolf wrote that statement. It is inside his quote
box, not outside.
That is not that uncommon an event on a laptop. I use a bluetooth mouse, but my laptop has a synaptics touchpad as well. Touch that with your thumb while typing and the cursor will move unexpectedly.

I don't try to preview "everything" I write. Usually only if I am inserting code or data to make sure it formats properly. It would be far nicer if the editing tool here was a WYSIWYG process, but it isn't... and with CCC so slow, using "preview" is a painfully slow process at times.

bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by bob » Sun May 24, 2009 4:54 pm

Uri Blass wrote:
bob wrote: You have to be careful here. DB always "thinks" when waiting on the opponent. I assume they use the same algorithm Murray added to HiTech, and which I also use in Crafty. Namely when it is my move, I look it up in the book and then make it. I then switch sides, find the set of known book moves, and remove those from the set of legal moves and then search that sub-set to find the best "non-book" move my opponent can play. I then use that to ponder so that I don't waste time pondering something where I have an immediate book response, but instead ponder a likely opponent move if he is now out of book.

In looking at the copy of the DB logs I have, it appears that move 10 by DB was book, move 11 was not although I looked very quickly. And DB did not think the game was over, having an eval of something like +0.60 or so... It appears it might "understand" this opening issue better than Rybka based on the analysis you gave by Rybka.
My comments:
1)Based on the log file Deep blue clearly pondered about book moves and not about the best non book moves.
for example it pondered about 1.e4 c5 when kasparov played 1...c6
I just went back over the log. I can not figure out _what_ they are doing. It appears that they either search the book moves only to detect blunders, or that they do a normal search to see which of the book moves the engine prefers naturally. Can't tell much from their extremely cryptic log output.



2)Deep blue evaluated the position after 8...fxe6 that kasparov did not play(kasparov chose 8...Qe7) as equal after 22 seconds

Here is the relevant part from the log file:
8(6) #[Bg6](0) 0 T=17
bd3g6 Ke8e7 o-o Pb7b5 rf1e1 Nf6d5 qd1e2 Nd7f6 nf3e5

and later:
0 T=22
bd3g6 Ke8e7 o-o Pb7b5 rf1e1 Nf6d5 qd1e2 Ke7d6 nf3e5 Nd7e5n qe2e5N Kd6e7 bc1d2 Qd8b6 pb2b4 Qb6c7 qe5h5

Deep blue also evaluated the position after move 9...fxe6 of the game as better for black

7(5) #[Bg6](-10) -10 T=4
bd3g6 Ke8d8 rf1e1 Kd8c7 bc1f4 Kc7b6 pc2c4 Pa7a6 pc4c5 Kb6a7 bg6f5
Most would consider anywhere between +10 and - 10 as pretty equal.


8(6)<ch> 'fe'
[0 sec (main.c:6589)] -10
T=13
bd3g6 Ke8d8 rf1e1 Kd8c7 bc1f4 Kc7b6 pc2c4 Pa7a6 ra1b1 Kb6a7 pb2b4
---------------------------------------
-->
10. Bg6 <-- 30/110:39




3)The eval of deep blue out of book at move 11 was 0.32 pawns for white
based on this part of the logfile:

9(6)[TIMEOUT] 32
T=190
bc1f4 Nf6e8 bf4g3 Ne8d6 rf1e1 Pa7a5 re1e3 Kd8c7 qd1e1 Qe7d8 pc2c4 Pc6c5 re3e6P Ra8a6

Rybka suggests at this point 11.c4

so k - Rybka 3 1-cpu 32-bit, Friend mode
r1bk1b1r/pp1nq1p1/2p1pnBp/8/3P4/5N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 3 1-cpu 32-bit :

11.Bc1-f4
= (0.06) Depth: 2 00:00:00
11.Bc1-f4
= (0.18) Depth: 3 00:00:00
11.Bc1-f4
= (0.10) Depth: 4 00:00:00
11.Bc1-f4
² (0.30) Depth: 5 00:00:00
11.Bc1-f4 Nf6-d5
= (0.15) Depth: 5 00:00:00
11.Bc1-f4 b7-b6 12.Qd1-e2
² (0.26) Depth: 6 00:00:00 2kN
11.Bc1-f4 b7-b6 12.Qd1-e2 Bc8-b7
² (0.29) Depth: 7 00:00:00 4kN
11.Bc1-f4 b7-b6 12.Qd1-e2 Bc8-b7 13.c2-c4
² (0.32) Depth: 8 00:00:00 10kN
11.c2-c4 b7-b6 12.Bc1-f4 Bc8-b7 13.Ra1-c1 Kd8-c8 14.d4-d5
² (0.28) Depth: 9 00:00:02 61kN
11.c2-c4 Qe7-b4 12.Qd1-e2 b7-b5
² (0.35) Depth: 10 00:00:05 157kN
11.c2-c4 b7-b6 12.Bc1-f4 Nf6-h7
² (0.35) Depth: 11 00:00:15 405kN
11.c2-c4 Nf6-h7 12.h2-h4 Nh7-f6 13.Bc1-f4 b7-b6 14.Rf1-e1 Bc8-b7 15.a2-a4
² (0.33) Depth: 12 00:00:22 617kN
11.c2-c4 Nf6-h7 12.h2-h4 Nh7-f6 13.Bc1-f4 Nf6-g4 14.Qd1-d3 Nd7-b6 15.Ra1-e1 Bc8-d7
² (0.44) Depth: 13 00:00:33 915kN
11.c2-c4 Nf6-h7 12.h2-h4 Nh7-f6 13.Bc1-f4 Nf6-g4 14.Qd1-e2 Nd7-b6 15.h4-h5 Rh8-g8 16.Nf3-d2
² (0.44) Depth: 14 00:00:53 1461kN
11.c2-c4 Nf6-h7 12.h2-h4 Nh7-f6 13.Bc1-f4 Nf6-g4 14.Qd1-e2 Nd7-b6 15.h4-h5 Bc8-d7 16.Nf3-d2 e6-e5
² (0.48) Depth: 15 00:02:55 4810kN
11.c2-c4 Nf6-h7 12.h2-h4 Nh7-f6 13.Bc1-f4 Nf6-g4 14.Qd1-e2 Nd7-b6 15.h4-h5 Bc8-d7 16.Nf3-d2 Kd8-c8 17.a2-a4 a7-a5 18.Rf1-d1 Ng4-f6 19.Nd2-b3 Nf6-e8
² (0.47) Depth: 16 00:04:57 7681kN
11.c2-c4 Nf6-g8 12.Qd1-d3 Qe7-d6
² (0.46) Depth: 17 00:09:58 16520kN
11.c2-c4 Nf6-h7 12.h2-h4 Nh7-f6 13.Bc1-f4 Nf6-g4 14.Qd1-d3 Qe7-b4 15.Qd3-c2 Bf8-e7 16.a2-a3 Qb4-a5 17.b2-b4 Qa5-a6 18.b4-b5 Qa6-b6 19.b5xc6
² (0.52) Depth: 18 00:28:58 51101kN
11.c2-c4 Nf6-h7 12.h2-h4 Nh7-f6 13.Bc1-f4 Nf6-g4 14.Qd1-d3 Qe7-b4 15.Qd3-c2 Bf8-e7 16.a2-a3 Qb4-a5 17.b2-b4 Qa5-a6 18.b4-b5 Qa6-b6 19.b5xc6
² (0.52) Depth: 19 00:36:55 64011kN

(so k, 24.05.2009)
I think the most notable point is that the program did not "think the game was over before it was out of book." That game can be won or lost by either side quite easily with one false step.

bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by bob » Sun May 24, 2009 4:58 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
MatsW wrote:In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800.
It is wrong to assume that all those who win correspondence titles have used software to help them though.
When I won my national correspondence title back in 94/95, I never used the assistance of chess engines at all, not even for blunder checking. However, because I was only 1900-2000 elo over the board and I had always had a strong interest in computer chess, you can guess the rumours and insinuations, and these were quite hurtful to me considering the immense amount of time and effort I'd put in.
You may be right for 94-95 but computers got clearly better since then.

Uri
You know that and I know that, but back then there was still a fear and distrust regarding the use of computer chess engines in any type of tournament.
Depends on the "program" also. I could tell you of more than one GM playing in an _important_ match where they would call (or have their seconds) call me, and/or Ken Thompson and/or Dave Slate to have our "big iron" crunch on a position for a while to see if there was an unexpected tactical/positional resource they might have missed. This when they "sealed" a move (or their opponent sealed one) and they then had overnight to grind away to find a winning plan.

MatsW

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by MatsW » Sun May 24, 2009 5:12 pm

So far, I haven't got one single serious response to my article about
relocation, which is the real subject of this thread:

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/ ... riants.htm

Instead, otherwise intelligent people, who are perfectly suited for
evaluating this, involve themselves in this squabble over trifles.
Ain't this human nature? It is like the never-ending babble of a Negro
village in black Africa. I think it is the instinctual nature of
humanity.

I put down a lot of effort into this, creating diagrams, etc., and
even translated the article into German. I also created six programs,
which include many variants, that can play the different variants.
Moreover, I programmed several email presets that can play the
randomized variants, by pointing and clicking.

In this idea, I think I have created something valuable for the future
chess community. All I'm asking is that somebody reads the article
through.

Mats

bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by bob » Sun May 24, 2009 5:18 pm

MatsW wrote:So far, I haven't got one single serious response to my article about
relocation, which is the real subject of this thread:

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/ ... riants.htm

Instead, otherwise intelligent people, who are perfectly suited for
evaluating this, involve themselves in this squabble over trifles.
Ain't this human nature? It is like the never-ending babble of a Negro
village in black Africa. I think it is the instinctual nature of
humanity.

I put down a lot of effort into this, creating diagrams, etc., and
even translated the article into German. I also created six programs,
which include many variants, that can play the different variants.
Moreover, I programmed several email presets that can play the
randomized variants, by pointing and clicking.

In this idea, I think I have created something valuable for the future
chess community. All I'm asking is that somebody reads the article
through.

Mats
I'm not big on chess variants. There is a lot of room left for improvement in normal chess, IMHO. The current design of Crafty makes it easy enough to implement odd castling rules such as those for chess960. However, the evaluation would need considerable work since piece placement becomes more important based on where the king has to live and why.

IMHO we already have _way_ too many variants on the basic game of chess...

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by Rolf » Sun May 24, 2009 8:09 pm

bob wrote:
Rolf wrote:
bob wrote: So, my conclusion is, whatever you are on, you need to take _less_ of, and whatever you are not on, you need more of it. My post is directly addressed to you, not to anyone else. It directly follows your post, not anybody elses. And it directly quotes your post, in addition to the one you replied to.

If you can't follow that, then perhaps you should go back to where you have been for the past month or two and stay there..

Perhaps another violation of the charter here is it when someone (Prof. Hyatt!) had it _all_ confused, content and author wise, and to then imply with doctored quotes that the one author (Mats) could well be Rolf in disguise.
Perhaps another good justification to ban you for life, IMHO. My post is still there, unedited, immediately following yours. Anyone can see it. Or at least anyone other than yourself.
I would prefer if a veritable Professor could for once forget about his prejudices against a foreign member and to please begin to realise that it was wrong here to attack Rolf - who , at least this time today, did write not a single letter about the topic Deep Blue. That was Mats. And all I did was quoting his message and then commenting on something else in that message but not Deep Blue.

Several others have already explained this to you. You should apologize for that mistake.

As to all the other differences between you and me, at least I admit that I have opinions which implies that they could be WRONG. And it would help in such a forum if such opinions were allowed to write. Why potentially wrong opinions are so ugly for a teacher is beyond any reasonable understanding. Opinions differ by definition between different people.

Or do you want to define what are allowed or tolerated opinions on CCC and which are forbidden? What is all the hate speech good for coming from a Professor in computer sciences? Why opinions are tried to get censored? Where is the respect for the free opinions of other members?

I own opinions, free opinions but NOT weapons of massdestruction! :shock:
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by bob » Sun May 24, 2009 9:05 pm

Rolf wrote:
bob wrote:
Rolf wrote:
bob wrote: So, my conclusion is, whatever you are on, you need to take _less_ of, and whatever you are not on, you need more of it. My post is directly addressed to you, not to anyone else. It directly follows your post, not anybody elses. And it directly quotes your post, in addition to the one you replied to.

If you can't follow that, then perhaps you should go back to where you have been for the past month or two and stay there..

Perhaps another violation of the charter here is it when someone (Prof. Hyatt!) had it _all_ confused, content and author wise, and to then imply with doctored quotes that the one author (Mats) could well be Rolf in disguise.
My comment was directed at your _continual_ usage of the word "cheat". Computers do not cheat according to the rules of FIDE. Never have. And they have been allowed to compete in FIDE events which further supports that. The discussion about the book is all nonsense.

Perhaps another good justification to ban you for life, IMHO. My post is still there, unedited, immediately following yours. Anyone can see it. Or at least anyone other than yourself.
I would prefer if a veritable Professor could for once forget about his prejudices against a foreign member and to please begin to realise that it was wrong here to attack Rolf - who , at least this time today, did write not a single letter about the topic Deep Blue. That was Mats. And all I did was quoting his message and then commenting on something else in that message but not Deep Blue.

Several others have already explained this to you. You should apologize for that mistake.

As to all the other differences between you and me, at least I admit that I have opinions which implies that they could be WRONG. And it would help in such a forum if such opinions were allowed to write. Why potentially wrong opinions are so ugly for a teacher is beyond any reasonable understanding. Opinions differ by definition between different people.

Or do you want to define what are allowed or tolerated opinions on CCC and which are forbidden? What is all the hate speech good for coming from a Professor in computer sciences? Why opinions are tried to get censored? Where is the respect for the free opinions of other members?

I own opinions, free opinions but NOT weapons of massdestruction! :shock:
Unfortunately, most of your opinions are based on fantasy, not fact. That _is_ a problem...

Steve B
Posts: 3697
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by Steve B » Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:21 pm

Adam Hair wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:Actually the impression that Bob would have mixed something up might have come from this little technical fault he made by not closing his quoting brackets before starting his own reply. But I consider this a minor issue since I think is trivial for any experienced reader of this board to discover that.

It is of course possible that this technical flaw had caused Mats to get confuse d about Bob's post himself.

Therefore my proposal to Bob would be to try taking more care about the exact "quoting syntax".

Sven
The use of the preview function would help in such situations.
two can play at this game
this was your very first post here(2009)
Deja Vu Regards
Steve

User avatar
JuLieN
Posts: 2948
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 10:16 am
Location: Nantes (France)
Contact:

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by JuLieN » Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:29 pm

Steve B wrote:
Adam Hair wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:Actually the impression that Bob would have mixed something up might have come from this little technical fault he made by not closing his quoting brackets before starting his own reply. But I consider this a minor issue since I think is trivial for any experienced reader of this board to discover that.

It is of course possible that this technical flaw had caused Mats to get confuse d about Bob's post himself.

Therefore my proposal to Bob would be to try taking more care about the exact "quoting syntax".

Sven
The use of the preview function would help in such situations.
two can play at this game
this was your very first post here(2009)
Deja Vu Regards
Steve
So young and yet so bright ! :)
"The only good bug is a dead bug." (Don Dailey)
Image [Blog: http://tinyurl.com/predateur ] [Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/fbpredateur ] [MacEngines: http://tinyurl.com/macengines ]

Steve B
Posts: 3697
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: The problem of opening theory in computer chess

Post by Steve B » Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:34 pm

JuLieN wrote:
Steve B wrote:
Adam Hair wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:Actually the impression that Bob would have mixed something up might have come from this little technical fault he made by not closing his quoting brackets before starting his own reply. But I consider this a minor issue since I think is trivial for any experienced reader of this board to discover that.

It is of course possible that this technical flaw had caused Mats to get confuse d about Bob's post himself.

Therefore my proposal to Bob would be to try taking more care about the exact "quoting syntax".

Sven
The use of the preview function would help in such situations.
two can play at this game
this was your very first post here(2009)
Deja Vu Regards
Steve
So young and yet so bright ! :)
I think you guys are so happy to finally step down from your mod posts you are letting your hair down a bit and fooling around
:P

Job Well Done Regards
Steve

Post Reply