Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / Engines Integration Interface, Would it be possible?
- - By Patricio (***) Date 2008-05-09 16:13 Edited 2008-05-09 16:16
Despite that Rybka is clear the current best chess engine in the world, she might have some weaknesses in some positions in comparison with other engines. And of course, it happens the other way around with other engines, I mean they are good evaluators of some positions and bad (or not so good) evaluators of other positions.

It could be said that this is related with the playing style of the engine, or in other words it is related with the approach that the developer took when he/she designed and developed it. And It is what determines the overal performance of the program.

Each engine (as any other software application) should have an evolution cycle. Now a days, each chess engine is being improved by their developers, but in my opinnion despite that there should be different ways to get the optimal chess engine (the one without possible improvements), this evolution path is determined, influenced, affected by the approach that the developer took, I mean the framework that inevitably he or she choose/developed/used etc. So the first question that comes to mind is if the approach taken could let reach the optimal general point of improvement. And of course another question is what would be the development cost (or the cost in general) from that initial/intermediate point of improvement to get the optimal point.

All this introduction has the objetive to ask, besides improving each particular solution to the chess game(which is very important and interesting), in other words each particular chess engine... wouldn't be helpfull and more effcient (and this is may question) to develop an interface (another program) that knows each engine style, weaknesses and strengths so it could decide which engines or engines ask for advice for a particular chess position on the board.

So the idea would be to use the strengths of each engine in each particular position.

As usual, all oppinions are welcome!!

Best Regards,

                       Patricio.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2008-05-09 20:01
When examining my positions, I use several chess engines that try to cover each other's weakness, and it seems to work (I have too many engines, so I couldn't use them all! And a moment is reached when there's too much redundancy so basically you should never add more than 3 different engines.)

But if I was asked why did I choose one engine and not another, I wouldn't be able to give a satisfactory explanation. So the best answer is that I had a gut feeling :), so my gut decides on what engines to use for a specific position, and surprisingly I do this very fast, but checking with another chess engines if my decision was correct would double the time used, so basically I'll never know if my decisions were right.

I'd like to see "gut feeling" implemented in a GUI so it chooses the best engines for the job automatically, but when it chooses totally different engines than those I would have chosen, I'm going to complain :)
Parent - By ppipper (*****) Date 2008-05-10 11:38
I think this is a very interesting question.

In my opinion, a user interface being able to manage the strengths / weaknesses of several engines, would be much more stronger than the best engine (now a days R3). One approach would be letting the user to specify which engine should be used according to a certain type os position, i.e. opened, closed, etc.

Then, challenge for engine developpers would be that their engines could identify as many type of positions as possible and use this data as an output data of the engine (like PV, depth, time used, etc). Challenge for users would be the ability to associate position's type with engines. If all this is well managed, I have no doubts that the resulting "engine/GUI" would be stronger than the best engine.

As a programmer, I have tried some approachs to this development, but the problem is that, at the moment, I have to specify manually the position type, cause I cannot get it from any engine.

Regards!
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / Engines Integration Interface, Would it be possible?

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill