Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 10:35:35 10/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2000 at 00:10:39, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 22, 2000 at 17:46:47, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>On October 22, 2000 at 17:07:54, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 22, 2000 at 16:16:19, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>> >>>>On October 21, 2000 at 14:30:52, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>> >>>>>Don't kill me - i am only joking ! Please don't start another >>>>>ideology battle :-))) here. >>>>> >>>>>Seems Gambit-Tiger plays not the weakest games... >>>> >>>>Well, maybe I exaggerated slightly when I said GT plays boring. But speculative >>>>eval is ANYTHING but a new paradigm. >>>> >>>>Only a pity that it thinks it needs killerlines in a tournament against >>>>amateurs. I mean bookmoves that are NO theory. I mean the continuation of >>>>unplayable moves, until it's basically mate in 10. See Tiger-Tao. >>> >>>The book moves in Tiger-Tao are theory moves. >>> >>>I looked in an old book like f5book.ctg and there are 2 replies for 12.exd5(Qa5 >>>and Bg7) >>> >>>Uri >> >>Yes. But Nxc2 is NOT theory, because it's deadly. It's the move to avoid. And GT >>had it in it's book, as well as even moves AFTER Nxc2. Up to the point that >>NeuroChess could have easily mated Deep Blue. >> >>Look, Cock the Gorter (opening specialist) stood behind me and said: "if you >>play Nxc2 the game is over. You will be mated instantly." Afterwards he >>seriously complimented me, for not being mated for 8 moves or so. >>Though I don't really blame 'em, it IS frustrating when you sit there. >> >>Now compare that to Roland (Patzer), who played with normal book in stead of >>killerbook against the amateurs. Had he killed amateurs like that, Patzer would >>have been ranked even higher. >> >>Ciao, >>Bas. > > > >4 points: > >1) I have been myself the victim of better books for a long time, because I had >written my book myself and it was very small. For example I remember I have been >caught by Diep in the blitz world championship (Paris, 1997). You have to live >with this, it happens. If you don't want it to happen, you have to find somebody >to write a strong book for you, and you can maybe also write automatic >algorithms to adapt an automatically generated book to the style of your >program. > >2) Jeroen has not written a killerbook. A killerbook is a book in which you >insert games won by your program so it can replay them against KNOWN opponents. >Your program as well as the other programs in this tournament are not known >opponents. > >3) Jeroen inserts novelties he has studied himself in his books. This is a hard >job to find novelties, and I don't see why it should not be rewarded also. > >4) Gambit Tiger is going to be available soon. You can try to let your program >play against it with books disabled for both, and inform us about the results. I realize I whined. I will stop that. But a few tiny comments: It depends on you definition if you call that line a killerline. My definition of a killer line happens to be exactly the one that Ed Schroeder has, isn't that a coincidence? In my book a line is a killerline if it contains several non-theory moves that are only meant to trap the opponent engine. Of course you CAN call such moves "novelties". Unfortunately you are right in stating that these tournaments nowadays are not only fights between engines, but also between books. Finally: Jeroen is a cool guy. After I resigned, we played a 30/0 game right away with random (non killer) book, just for fun. Tiger won. It seems you wanted to hear that? Ciao, Bas.
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.