Author: José Carlos
Date: 14:07:07 01/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2002 at 16:30:29, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 31, 2002 at 16:11:26, José Carlos wrote: >[snip] >> My book: >> >> - was based in pgn files, having winning side into account >> - had many lines from Carlos Pesce's excellent book >> - had some hand tuned lines, that I analyzed myself with four computers at the >>same time (four different programs, one of which was Averno, just to make sure >>it would 'understand' the positions), and with a bit of my intuition (not much, >>though, as my ELO is only about 2150 FIDE) > >That's pretty darn good, if you ask me. > >> - had tons of automatically learned knowledge. I had a computer running test >>matches with learning enabled for a week. Do you guess what the opponents >>were...? :) >> >> I had been waiting for this tournament since, in CCT3, I didn't have my new >>version ready and had to play with an obsolete version. I did my best >>(considering my lack of time) to well in CCT4. And I believe I did not too bad >>:) > >I strongly suspect that you have the best amateur book on the planet. I wish I did! But my book still needs a lot of work. Actually, I only worked on it seriously the last week before CCT4. If you look at Averno's games, in the game vs PostModernist Averno went out of book in a position it didn't understand at all. Of course PostModernist played pretty well that game, but the book line was simply bad. But I'll keep working on it. IMO, the book must give the program positions it 'knows' how to play. That's why I analyze book lines always with Averno (as well as with stronger programs) and I rely on book learning, which tends to give high 'learned score' to positions where the program gets good results. I also want to thank Carlos Pesce for his book's good lines and nice email discussions about book learning strategies. José C. >I don't >think that most people put this much effort into it. Book sophistication is >very important, especially for these contests. >It's a fine line (in fact) whether most amateur books are better than no book at >all. A 30% time penalty will probably lead to a lot of losses [assuming that >1/3 of the game is in book]. But a collection of 30% bad book lines will do >just the same. >;-)
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.