Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 12:35:54 08/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2003 at 14:07:24, Christian Kongsted. wrote: >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 > Hi, I understand your point. What I mean is that I would expect more room to this important part of the program and some explanations about the difference between "normal" chess programs and top ones. A better book can be important to help the owners to improve better starting from the opening phase... Anywat congratulations for your book and huge work! Ciao Sandro > > >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.