Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:39:07 08/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2002 at 18:28:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 25, 2002 at 18:20:05, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On August 25, 2002 at 18:11:41, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 25, 2002 at 17:54:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On August 25, 2002 at 17:23:45, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 25, 2002 at 17:09:41, Alexander Kure wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 25, 2002 at 16:38:35, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>So, the general.ctg isn't an automatically generated book neither ? >>>>>>>BTW, what is your opinion to amateur engines using your books ? >>>>>> >>>>>>general.ctg from the young talents CD is identical to the Fritz 6 book and >>>>>>therefore *not* automatically generated. >>>>>>I expect amateur engines using this book to at least gain 100 elo to their SSDF >>>>>>rating. >>>>>> >>>>>>Greetings >>>>>>Alex >>>>> >>>>>I think that it is dependent on the knowledge of the amateur in the opening. >>>>>I believe that a good engine should find in 90% of the games the right moves >>>>>with a small user book that have only games of less than 10 moves. >>>> >>>>>losing half point in the rest of the games(10%)+losing time in some moves that >>>>>it is out of book is not going to cost 100 elo. >>>> >>>>knock knock, what world are you living in? >>>> >>>>A different one as i do at least. How much alcohol does it take to >>>>drink to say that a hand tuned book is not 100 points better? >>>> >>>>anyone who has seriously auto232 played at home will be able to tell >>>>you the influence. If i do it here we talk about scoring 100% against >>>>an amateur or way way less. >>>> >>>>That's a *major* difference. >>>> >>>>>If someone has an epd file of opening positions ordered by frequency based on a >>>>>big database of games then it may be interesting to find the positions that >>>>>programs have problems with them. >>>> >>>>You are not bad in math. you should understand that if you play 15 >>>>book moves that an automatical book has a near to 100% chance to >>>>get into a completely *refuted* line. >>>> >>>>Each move there is a chance of around 50% to go wrong. >>> >>>Maybe if you play moves from a big book automatically but this is not the way >>>that I suggest. >>> >>>I suggest to use only a small book that was edited manually and use the big book >>>only in the first moves if you need to avoid playing the opening that you lost >>>and when you are not in position that you lost I suggest to ignore the big book. >>> >>>I do not expect engines to follow a big book that is full of blunders. >>>There is no reason to do it if the engine can use time to find better moves in >>>the opening. >> >>The word "blunder" may not be appropriate, here. >>There were opening lines in history which had been refuted after years of active >>play. You can't expect an engine to find these in a few minutes. > >I believe that if the engine cannot find it in few minutes there is a serious >problem in the engines and the programmers should work to improve the engine. > >computers should be able to do in minutes what humans do in years so the claim >that they were refuted after years of active play does not convince me. Ok let me quote you on this later. You are saying here that all grandmaster are 'dumb idiots', because a computer can do in 2 minutes what years of study and research has not shown? That's not true of course. they are not idiots. An engine cannot find in 2 minutes what their hard practice has shown in years. Openings theory improves and improves each year. It is impossible to just claim a 2 minute analysis is in advance going to improve upon them. Or do you *really* think that a few hundreds of persons on this planet are wasting their time playing chess? >> >>Especially in the SSDF multi-game matches, use of a large high class book is a >>huge advantage. >> >>Uli > >I do not understand why more games is a big advantage. > >Uri
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.