Author: Peter Berger
Date: 11:18:16 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 14:03:38, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On February 15, 2005 at 09:29:58, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On February 15, 2005 at 06:46:04, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2005 at 02:56:54, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>>On February 14, 2005 at 20:08:42, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 14, 2005 at 19:54:03, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Yes, you opposed this point of view multiple times before in discussions >>>>>>with Uri , but I think you never managed to score. >>>> >>>>>Of, I have managed to score several games during the year 2004. >>>> >>>>That's just a misunderstanding, because I worded badly :). My "scoring" only >>>>applied to the discussions, not to the quality of your work on the opening book. >>>> >>>>Btw - it's not trivial to think of a good and practical experiment to setup to >>>>show who is right. >>>> >>>>Peter >>> >>>Well, I have already done such an experiment and I know who will give the >>>easiest point. It is great because it will mean easy points. >>> >>>However, I would not spend again valuable time repeating the same nonsense >>>experiment. >>> >>>Arturo. >> >>I think you can't really do such a test properly on your own. And it would be so >>extremely time-consuming to do in a realistic way, that I doubt anyone has ever >>really done it. >> >>You mentioned the major problem I see in another post, learning as done by a >>book author. This is a factor that has to be taken into account. >> >>If you take your opening book as prepared for some major event, it is probably >>nearly 100% deterministic at start of some round. If you run it against an >>automatically learning book in longer matches to get a measure for the quality >>of your work, it will get beaten badly. It might do well in the first few games, >>until the opponent finds some hole ( which in this case means just some line >>where it can beat "your" engine) - then it will repeat it in the following >>games. > >How do you know that a book mine is so "deterministic"? How do you base your >facts in more suppositions without any proof? Well, I can argue that I have done >such tests but I wont reveal how I do such tests. It was an assumption, because it is just reasonable to have a deterministic book at the start of a given game. Why throw dices if you have an idea which move is best in a given situation ? This doesn't mean that you don't have several alternatives prepared. Of course there are other ways to do things, no doubt. >>This is not a realistic test of what would happen in a tournament. >> >>But if you allow yourself to update the book during rounds, you have to allow >>your opponent to do the same. Else it is not realistic again. Even >>engines/authors who have a little book ,that is much shorter but every move >>checked, will react to what happens in the tournament games. E.g. Uri chose to >>just switch books after watching a movei opening he didn't like in cct7. >> >>The difference between a highly optimized book and one that just has few >>adaptions is mostly in quantity in this discussion. While the optimized book >>will usually have a few thousand manually entered lines the latter might have >>only sth up to 50 ( numbers arbitrary chosen). The question is if you can be >>sure that with the huge number of lines you don't add more garbage than quality > >Well, As you said "usually" and your book was one thousand lines book. My book >is bigger than only 1000 lines. > >This is not a relevant question because I dont generate a random book. My book >has over 200000 lines added by hand. Sometimes, my decision about line has not >been convenient. Maybe, you choose arbitraly your numbes. I dont know how you >od it and I am not interested in. My books are higly checked by hands. >Sometimes, I dont have enough time to test them with the engines and it possibly >means a bad result. But your question is not relevant of how I do my books. I think we are getting nowhere here. I wasn't trying to steal your ideas on how you do books or test them, but you obviously got this impression. This was meant to be a thought experiment - oh and yes, "mine" is bigger than 1000 too :) Be well Peter
This page took 0.01 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.