The problem of opening theory in computer chess
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:36 am
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.
I have a suggestion that could measure also the opening understanding
in chess programs. Today, a program needs, foremostly, to have general
middlegame and endgame knowledge about stratagems, while the opening
can be dealt with by cheating, namely by reading directly from the
book. My proposal, which implies that the standard array can be
rearranged, does not involve randomization, but the players must take
decisions from the beginning, using a method of relocation.
The various relocation methods allow the players optionally to
relocate king and/or queen before the play begins, whilst retaining
the castling rights. The players can abstain from this if they prefer
the standard setup. It is a cogent method of rearranging the initial
position to enhance opening ramification, while allowing the players
to remain in control. The resultant positions deviate marginally from
the standard position and would be experienced as natural by most
chessplayers.
The rules are like standard chess except that the players can, before
play begins, swap places of the king + queen and another piece except
the rooks. Thus, when the king is swapped ('relocated'), the other
piece (the 'relocatee') ends up on the king's square. When the queen
is swapped, the relocatee ends up on the queen's square. One
restriction is that the bishops mustn't end up on the same square
colour, and the king cannot become a relocatee (i.e. swapped by the
queen).
The following article (see link below) contains diagrams and links to
email presets and programs that can play the variants. Unlike
Chess960, these variants do not exclude theoretical study. The players
themselves, independently, decide which setup they want to play. They
could specialize in a certain setup and study it at home. They would
work even harder with their databases. But they could choose the
standard setup, too. It's not the question that variants such as these
threaten people's theoretical work. These variants should be seen as
alternatives. They could be used in chess training, and in rapid chess
tournaments. I have studied much theory, too. I am not allergic to it.
It's just that I have become sceptical about the longevity of chess in
view of today's computerization. It seems that it has narrowed down
theory, in a sense. I give this example in my article, which provides
a good example of today's dilemma:
The best opening move is 1.e4. Suppose that Black answers
1...e5. Obviously, there is a lack of strong alternatives to
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4, etc. etc. So there are no good
substitutes for the long variations in Ruy Lopez, while the
alternatives are inferior. Italian game (Giuoco Piano) isn't really
dangerous anymore, and one can't put one's trust in the King's gambit.
The Ponziani doesn't promise much.
It's becoming less and less worthwhile to play inferior variants, due
to opening preparations. If only there existed an equally good opening
system against 1...e5, it would be a great relief. Due to a
slight shortfall of variance in chess, it leads to the necessity of
analysing and playing professional opening lines to the umpteenth
move. There is nothing essentially wrong in such a scientific
approach, but it is slightly frustrating from a creative point of
view.
Of course, 1...e5 is not the only serious defence, Aljechin is
a superb alternative, as well as the Sicilian. I only wanted to shed
light on a frustrating quality of the game, i.e. that after
1...e5 you don't really have the same freedom of moves as you
had in the beginning of the 20th century. Theory is narrowing down
because it's not worthwhile to choose the King's gambit when playing
against a prepared opponent. Comparatively, the feeling of freedom
must have been unimaginable when the American trapper, in the 18th
century, moved into Western territory. Today, people travel along the
highways, just as in modern chess.
In my proposed "relocation variants" theoretical studies remain a
meaningful occupation, although their impact is reduced. This is a
major departure from Chess960. The foremost difference is that the
player can himself decide the setup of his own pieces, whereas
Chess960 is wholly randomized. Additionally, the positions are
"natural" in appearance. Only in one variant (Placement Chess), are
all positions mirrored. Unlike randomized Chess960, the relocation
idea would be acceptable to most chessplayers. See link: (in English
and German)
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/ ... riants.htm
Mats
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.
I have a suggestion that could measure also the opening understanding
in chess programs. Today, a program needs, foremostly, to have general
middlegame and endgame knowledge about stratagems, while the opening
can be dealt with by cheating, namely by reading directly from the
book. My proposal, which implies that the standard array can be
rearranged, does not involve randomization, but the players must take
decisions from the beginning, using a method of relocation.
The various relocation methods allow the players optionally to
relocate king and/or queen before the play begins, whilst retaining
the castling rights. The players can abstain from this if they prefer
the standard setup. It is a cogent method of rearranging the initial
position to enhance opening ramification, while allowing the players
to remain in control. The resultant positions deviate marginally from
the standard position and would be experienced as natural by most
chessplayers.
The rules are like standard chess except that the players can, before
play begins, swap places of the king + queen and another piece except
the rooks. Thus, when the king is swapped ('relocated'), the other
piece (the 'relocatee') ends up on the king's square. When the queen
is swapped, the relocatee ends up on the queen's square. One
restriction is that the bishops mustn't end up on the same square
colour, and the king cannot become a relocatee (i.e. swapped by the
queen).
The following article (see link below) contains diagrams and links to
email presets and programs that can play the variants. Unlike
Chess960, these variants do not exclude theoretical study. The players
themselves, independently, decide which setup they want to play. They
could specialize in a certain setup and study it at home. They would
work even harder with their databases. But they could choose the
standard setup, too. It's not the question that variants such as these
threaten people's theoretical work. These variants should be seen as
alternatives. They could be used in chess training, and in rapid chess
tournaments. I have studied much theory, too. I am not allergic to it.
It's just that I have become sceptical about the longevity of chess in
view of today's computerization. It seems that it has narrowed down
theory, in a sense. I give this example in my article, which provides
a good example of today's dilemma:
The best opening move is 1.e4. Suppose that Black answers
1...e5. Obviously, there is a lack of strong alternatives to
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4, etc. etc. So there are no good
substitutes for the long variations in Ruy Lopez, while the
alternatives are inferior. Italian game (Giuoco Piano) isn't really
dangerous anymore, and one can't put one's trust in the King's gambit.
The Ponziani doesn't promise much.
It's becoming less and less worthwhile to play inferior variants, due
to opening preparations. If only there existed an equally good opening
system against 1...e5, it would be a great relief. Due to a
slight shortfall of variance in chess, it leads to the necessity of
analysing and playing professional opening lines to the umpteenth
move. There is nothing essentially wrong in such a scientific
approach, but it is slightly frustrating from a creative point of
view.
Of course, 1...e5 is not the only serious defence, Aljechin is
a superb alternative, as well as the Sicilian. I only wanted to shed
light on a frustrating quality of the game, i.e. that after
1...e5 you don't really have the same freedom of moves as you
had in the beginning of the 20th century. Theory is narrowing down
because it's not worthwhile to choose the King's gambit when playing
against a prepared opponent. Comparatively, the feeling of freedom
must have been unimaginable when the American trapper, in the 18th
century, moved into Western territory. Today, people travel along the
highways, just as in modern chess.
In my proposed "relocation variants" theoretical studies remain a
meaningful occupation, although their impact is reduced. This is a
major departure from Chess960. The foremost difference is that the
player can himself decide the setup of his own pieces, whereas
Chess960 is wholly randomized. Additionally, the positions are
"natural" in appearance. Only in one variant (Placement Chess), are
all positions mirrored. Unlike randomized Chess960, the relocation
idea would be acceptable to most chessplayers. See link: (in English
and German)
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/ ... riants.htm
Mats