Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:33:35 08/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2002 at 18:22:14, Albert Silver wrote: >On August 30, 2002 at 18:01:02, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On August 30, 2002 at 16:21:26, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2002 at 14:45:43, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>> >>>>Hello: >>>> >>>>I post now the final results for the Match Yace + My Modified Book Vs. Yace + >>>>NoBoook. >>>> >>>>I haven't analyzed the games but the result is clear: 13.5 - 6.5 for Yace + My >>>>Modified Book. >>> >>>If not having book cause the program to lose on time then there is no doubt that >>>book help. >>> >>>Yace no book lost 2 games on time(games 9 and 12). >>> >>>one after 1.c4 and one in a clearly drawn position. >>>If we do not include the c4 game and include the second game >>>that yace(no book) lost on time as a draw >>>the result is only 12-7 for Yace with book. >>> >>>From looking at the games I found that in most of the cases yace(no book) got >>>equal position and there were only few cases when yace >>>fell into traps. >>> >>>I believe that more time and better hardware can help >>>programs to avoid more traps and to expose holes >>>in the book so I expect the difference to be smaller at >>>120/40 time control with faster hardware. >> >>From my experiments, I expect the difference to be larger at longer time >>controls. At very fast time control (e.g. G/1 or G/2 minutes) there is very >>little repeatable difference. At G/30 and above, the difference becomes very >>clear. >> >>I have no idea why it turns out this way, because I should expect that the book >>would matter more when you cannot think about the right move very long, since >>the book moves should be pretty good, at least. > >Sounds very human. Chess wisdom has taught that often when a player thinks >overly long on a move that shouldn't require so much thought, they will play >something horrendous. In practice, what probably happens, is the player had >enough time to contradict their (correct) instincts and justify it through a >long (incorrect) reasoning. This helps justify (stupidly) the (absurd) amount of >time they spent, as they (mule-headedly) did not play the (correct) move they >saw in the first 10 seconds. Yes. That is why I always supported the possibilities to use opening books in human chess. Too much or little thinking are both full of errors. We should get rid of it. So we should be able to concentrate on the parts of chess where no perfect books exist yet. That is also the only field where we are _free_ to think because the average observer can't say so quickly what is incorrect or absurd. :-) Rolf Tueschen > >:-) > >Albert
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.