Author: Christian Kongsted.
Date: 12:39:57 08/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2003 at 15:35:54, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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 Ciao Sandro Ok, I see what you mean now. Well...some work left for the next edition :-) Thanks a lot. Best wishes, Christian >> >> >>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.