Author: Christian Kongsted.
Date: 11:07:24 08/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Jeroen, Thank you very much. Your large experience with this makes an impression, so I will definitely take a note of your point of view and continue to investigate the subject further. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts about these issues. Best wishes, Christian PS to Sandro Necchi: I certainly believe the opening book is important. I was mainly commenting on the general quality of them On August 20, 2003 at 13:39:35, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On August 20, 2003 at 09:21:07, Christian Kongsted. wrote: > >Hi Christian, > >Thanks for your quick answer! > >Let me first emphasis that I like your book a lot and that it >is a good contribution to the present state of chess. Indeed, >you'll find no chessbook on the subjects you have described, >so you deserve credit to be the first one to write a serious >book on it! > >Especially I like your recommendations how to use a computer >for analysis, as I am doing exactly the same thing as you describe >in your book. The combination good player + strong chess program >can get very good analysis results. But the player should dictate >things, not the program. > >Of course I know that putting a book together always will lead >to space problems, as a result of which some topics will get >less room than others. Still, I think you can only reach valid >conclusions about the opening books when you: > >a) thoroughly investigate them (quite some job with those huge books), >b) know how they were made. > >When I read your opinion about this, I can only tell you from my >own 14 year experience 'this is not how it is done'. And I think >you underestimate the strength of the best books. A De Gorter, Kure >or Necchi book can present strong players with nasty surprises. > >Anyway, people tend to disagree and I have absolutely no problem >with that! Nor do I feel offended, or something like that. > >Best wishes, Jeroen > > > > > > >>Thanks for your interesting comments on the book 'How to Use Computers to >>Improve Your Chess" >> >>First of all, I am sorry that you felt that too little space was dedicated to >>the subject of opening books. I can only say that when you have 192 pages and >>want to cover several aspects of computer chess, you need to give some issues >>more priority than others. >> >>In general, my point of view is that computer opening books is an area of >>computer chess where there is room for improvement. I don't mean to criticize or >>provoke anyone here or devalue some of the good work which is being done by >>creators of the opening books. It is just a statement - a point of view. >> >>But let me answer point by point: >> >>1. Note that I am speaking about computer programs in general, not only about >>the absolute top. I am aware that years have been invested in the opening books >>of the absolute top programs (e.g. I know Dan Wulff personally, and I believe he >>has done a great job with the Gandalf book, which has taken many years to >>develop) >> >>2. In my book (on p. 82) I include a well-known example from the Blitz world >>champions between Fritz and Nimzo, in which both computers are following a game >>from the database, which was entered erroneously in the original source (TWIC). >>If you tell me that you are not working like this Jeroen, I naturally believe >>it, but apparently other people are. >> >>3. "The opening book operators are not necessarily strong players and thus might >>be having trouble identifying which lines are viable and which are not." >> >>Although there are some good exceptions, I believe this statement to be true. >> >>4. "Generally, strong players do not have to fear the opening book of the >>computer." >> >>I also stand by that statement, although it may of course seem slightly >>provoking to some people. My general point of view is that a 2600-grandmaster >>can make much better preparations than a weaker player and he knows much more >>about the current trends and evaluations of opening theory. If he plays his >>normal lines against the program, he should not fear the opening book (note >>however, that he may still have good reasons to fear or at least respect the >>engine!) I agree that a single-game preparation with a sharp off-beat variation >>is a very strong weapon for the opening book operator, and I am sure that this >>can be used to a good effect. >> >>Thanks for your point of view and for your recommendation, even though you do >>not agree with me in all the points mentioned above. >> >>Christian Kongsted
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.