Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 12:52:59 08/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2003 at 15:39:57, Christian Kongsted. wrote: >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 > Ciao Christian, OK, I wish you a lot of success to your book. I think it would be a good idea to think about a next edition. If you want some "comments" about this matter, you can write me. I'll be happy to tell you my point of view, leaving to you what to put in the book. 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.