Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 12:09:14 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 14:18:16, Peter Berger wrote: >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 From all this brain storming, I can remark just one fact: Your performance in CCC2004 was outstanding and nobody can deny that. :) Again, my compliments. I would have liked to see a Crafty operated by you in CCT7. Arturo.
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.