Author: Peter Berger
Date: 05:55:00 01/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2003 at 07:18:26, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On January 28, 2003 at 06:36:18, Peter Berger wrote: > >>That's IMHO the best conclusion I read about game 1: >> >>"All I can say is that if this match comes down to a competition of Kasparov and >>Dokhoian's preparation against Alterman's, Junior is going to be Deep all right. >>Deep-sixed, Deep trouble, and in Deep doo-doo." > First, I am pretty convinced that Junior will also play much more successful games in this match. >The solution is simple, instead of using a huge Opening Book against Kasparov, >Alterman should only include a special Opening Book where the outcome has been >either Draw or win agains Kasparov. Remember any draw in the past against >Kasparov has to be considered an excellent Opening choice, since at his level to >come out even from the Opening Stage and be able to draw against him is an >excellent accomplishment. There are hundreth of games against Karpov, Kramnik, >Anand and Shirov where they can collect Openings used against Kasparov. >Therefore, a special Opening Book with those games should NOT be that hard to >collect. > I don't think this would work as you expect it to do at all. Think of openings like the Kings Indian which would be very prominent in your book - Junior wouldn't be happy to have to play it with the black pieces I suppose :). The problem is not so much with selection of moves that have been played in games but with moves that have never been played but are well-known anyway. Not trusting bookmoves solves only one half of the problem ( given that the engine can find better ones by itself, which is also not so clear). Much information is in published (or unpublished, ouch) analysis. If you look in an online database like chesslive there are many lines that were once popular but were refuted later or went out of fashion. Sometimes the reasons are obvious - there are one or two games that spoilt the system and it should theoretically be possible to get sth like that with technical means. But sometimes it's different - a line just vanishes and if you look at the games played with it there is no obvious reason. I expect that in this case often either analysis published or homework showed problems that were never revealed in games. Although not exactly fitting, I like this article very much: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz24.txt - which I studied yesterday evening. It's just a tiny example but I assume in the workbooks of masters there is _much_ more like it. Regards, Peter
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.