SmyslovFan wrote:
I'm still waiting for you to cite the source, or sources since you now say "computer scientists" use that definition.
For the record, while I am not a computer scientist, I have studied AI and taken courses in Psychology pertaining to AI. I am a literate lay person, but I recognize my limitations.
In another thread, I pointed out that it came from what may be the most popular university text on Artificial Intelligence. (Myself I too am not a computer scientist but have a lot of experience in machine learning, including deep learning and reinforcement learning).
. Maybe you'd propose hamstringing the engine by making it randomly "misremember" the best lines from its opening book? To simulate fuzzy human memory? Or maybe artificially limit it to storing only 25 openings to 30 moves and the rest only to 10 moves?
In addition, an opening book is a crutch for an engine, just saving it from calculating deep enough to do without it, as Stockfish does.
Yes, but also I think it should be mentioned traditional engines like SF are not designed to handle the opening well. The programmers make adjustments mostly aimed at middlegame play, assuming there will be an opening book of some sort (if not one they prefer).
True, but bear in mind that in the middle game Stockfish is guided by how good a position it thinks it can reach 20 moves (or whatever) in the future. This should be a good guide to the openings as well. A conventional engine like Stockfish can look at almost a billion lines from a position, which has to be compared with the entire database of games. Not only this, but as the engines get stronger, their lines are worth more relative to human games (a large part of the advance of chess engines has been better search and evaluation rather than merely more nodes). Computer opening books surely have to be based on computer examples more than GM examples, because the GM games are more error prone.
This is why I'd like to see the strongest traditional engine, with a good opening book as well as EGTB. That would be much more like a mankind vs alien intelligence match... although I assume AZ team has no interest in what chess fans like.
I also read that they haven't released all the games, and haven't released any code. If this is supposed to be a leap in AI, why aren't the full methods and results available to researchers in that field? That, combined with the curious SF choices make it seem a bit fishy.
While I see your point from the point of view of what has become the norm, it actually reduces the competitive element. The game becomes the filling in the middle of a sandwich of 20 moves of opening book selected by a human being independently of the computer and a tablebase which is perfect and removes all competition from that phase of the game. Kasparov said the endgame was the most important part of chess and was what people should study most. Not with a tablebase for assistance. Those tablebases are massive: the 7 piece one is 140 Tb, and even the 6 piece one is 1 Tb.
Think of the notion of a computer trying to play OTB chess like a human. It is not allowed to use books or tablebases, but has to find moves itself. I recall there was some debate about whether Deep Blue was cheating when it used opening books against Kasparov (since he could not refer to books during the games)!