Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:06:02 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 03:29:02, Yuriy Lyapko wrote: >On September 06, 2002 at 01:55:35, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 05, 2002 at 19:57:59, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 2002 at 19:12:44, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 05, 2002 at 18:39:26, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>> >>>>>>The point is that the result of list in Kurt unziker's tournament was achieved >>>>>>by a book that it not list's book. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have nothing against the tournament and I read Kurt's post but the consequence >>>>>>that there is evidence that list is the strongest amteur program >>>>>>seems to be wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hello, Uri. >>>>> >>>>>It is very strange that you declare now that the decisive factor was the Book. >>>>> >>>>>You said that any program without almost evaluation could resolve the problems >>>>>of the openings. >>>>> >>>>>How can you declare that the Book is the main factor. >>>>> >>>>>This is a contradiction on your previous declarations. >>>>> >>>>>Really amazing. Ionesco´s Theater would be very pleased with such kind of >>>>>declarations!! >>>>> >>>>>Regards, Arturo Ochoa M. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Mogens larsen test List against the first division programs in fair >>>>>>condition(every program use it's book and 2 games) >>>>>>that means that list is using no book and list scored sligthly less than 50%. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Do you believe what you are saying now? You said that the Book is not important. >>>>> >>>>>How can you argue now? >>>>> >>>>>Interesting........ >>>>> >>>>>Arturo. >>>> >>>>The fact that list could score sligthly less than 50% against the best free >>>>programs suggest that book is relatively not important. >>>> >>> >>>This is the problem: >>> >>>You only say: "I believe" "I think" "It seems" "It suggests" "relatively" >>> >>>That is a dumb because you don´t prove anything what it results very funny for >>>me. >>> >>>You change your position in every message. >>> >>>You say now it is not important a book you said that List used a comercial book >>>and it was very important. >>> >>>Really interesting...... >>> >>> >>>>List is not a top engine and with book and pondering it can compete for the >>>>title of the best amateur. >>>> >>>>Without them it is sligthly weaker. >>>> >>> >>>Yes? But you said that List used a comercial book and it is the cause what List >>>worn the Utzinger Tournament. >> >>No >> >>I did not say it. >> >>Kurt replaced the book in the middle of the tournament from Fritz6's book to a >>book that is supposed to be worse and the result of List only improved(List got >>closer to Junior5). >> >>I did not say that the Fritz6 book was the reason for List's success. >>I only mentioned this fact because people complained that the Fritz6 book is a >>big advantage for Crafty in the ssdf. >> >>Kurt found that it seems that List had not better book than the opponent based >>on looking in the games >> >>Uri > >First of all, I don't understand why he should use any book for List? It dependent on what he wants to test. If the target is to find the potential of list with book then giving a book for list is clearly logical. List with no book can repeat the same loss twice so it may be a problem if more than 2 games are played between programs. >I completely agree with Arturo that book is VERY important, especially at rapid >and blitz time controls (my guess is about 100 ELO or maybe a bit more). List beated Crafty 4-0 in your blitz tournament inspite of using no book. It is only one game but I think that books are relatively more important mainly at time control that are not blitz but are not very slow time control. The point is that at blitz programs do a lot of errors so errors in the book moves are relatively not important. In very long time control good programs can more often find the good moves by themselves and they may even find better moves than the book moves so again books are relatively not important. As you >can see in Leo's 3rd Division Bestia still may relegate and I already now that >the main problem of weak play is tiny book (<=10 ply) which is used. I do not use bigger book for movei and I know that one of the main problems of movei is mistakes in the endgame stage. In Brice >Boissel blitz gauntlet tournament Bestia with tiny book scored 2200 ELO(88 >games), than he replaced it with old big (buggy) book and now after 100 games it >has 2260 ELO. I've already almost prepared a better book for next tournaments >and we'll see, what result it achieves. > >Best regards, >George I believe that you can make bigger improvement by improving the knowledge of bestia in the opening and the middle game. I believe that having big books is better for blitz because it may be more important to save time in the clock and not to play the right moves. For longer time control only smaller book should be used to play in 0 seconds and the big book can be used only as an advisor for extensions. 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.