Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 15:56:00 08/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2002 at 18:45:07, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 25, 2002 at 18:39:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>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? > >computers can calculate in 2 minutes what humans need more than few years to >calculate. > >Computers are simply faster than humans and everything that human can do >computers can do faster if people write the right programs. Sounds like a religion. Do you really believe in this ? Uli > >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.