Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:53:57 11/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 2003 at 02:40:42, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On October 31, 2003 at 18:00:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >Hi, Rolf, > >>Sandro, >>just a question of a more general content. I saw that you didn't comment on the >>whole Leiden& Book author debate. Still - could you give your opinion to the >>following question? > >OK, I think one should look only on his side and not criticize others...do you >understand what I mean? >Everybody know how good is Jeroem, still when you make a book for a chess >program you may experience that sometimes things do not work as expected. This >can happen to everybody and I do not see why criticize a book maker for those >things... >I always said that the opening book is part of a chess program and an important >part even if not the most important one which is the chess engine. >For me to evaluate a chess program without the opening book is like to evaluate >an airplane without the wings...it makes no sense. > >> >>What do you think about the question that a particular & very successful book >>author (like yourself for example) could be engaged to build the book for >>several different machines which participate in the same tournament at the same >>time? Would you find this ok? Or do you see problems of loyalty or whatever? > >I think there should be a limit to that. I would say no more than 2 programs and >the book should not be exactly the same. >I mean for me it is a sort of competition with other book makers. If I am >partecipating with one program only and another with 3 or more he has more >chances to win and so the result would be less important...I hope you understand >what I mean. >If the book is made by the same team for all chess programs, how can one call >himself maker of the opening book who got the title? Of course he got it...how >could have been otherwise? > >> >>If a certain successful book is given to many programs, how fair the competition >>is in your eyes from the perspectives of the "other" programs which don't get >>the good book? > >Yes, this is unfair to me. >Also I do not see how this can be done (allowed) without the permission of the >author... > >> >>Finally a question that always interested me as a CC layman: how many % you >>estimate the importance of a good book for today's chess machines? > >This is a very good question! >I always said, since 1978, that a good opening book is essential in today chess >programs. It is even more today because the programs are stronger and there are >faster hardwares. It can be a reason why it is not important. After all if programs are good enough they can also find better moves than the book moves by search. >So, now it shoud be clearified what a good opening book is. To me a good opening >book is something that helps the program to play better and score better. >This means that even a small book which brings to positions more suitable to a >specific chess program is a good book. It could be the best one for that >program. I agree and this reason is good enough not to be afraid when other programs use a book that was not build for them. I do not see the commercial demage for someone from the fact that chessmaster is using general.ctg I am not sure if this book is better for it then the book in the chessmaster CD and I do not see why other people take it as obvious that a book that was not build for chessmaster is better for it. I do not like all the complain of unfair advantage when it is even not proven that there is an advantage from using general.ctg I also do not think that the advantage from using a learner is very big because an old version of Ruffian without a learner did good result in the ssdf games inspite of the fact that Ruffian does not evaluate pawn storms. 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.