Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 14:58:19 11/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1998 at 08:16:52, Ralph E. Carter wrote: >I understand the need to have a statistically significant sample size at the end >of the critical line. >Unfortunately, it appears necessary to ensure the sample size in EVERY branch >examined. This damages the useability of this great tool. Its analysis can be >trusted only if you KNOW that every leaf had at least this sample size. So you >can't know to what depth you can reasonably search. > >Another parameter is needed: "minimum sample size at each leaf", either when >creating the tree, or when calculating the critical line. > >P.S. You can work around this by manually pruning off the infrequently played >lines. But all the while, your results using "Critical Line" remain >problematical. Assuming your database consists of games played by high rated >players only, I think the most reliable statistic on a move is "N". (The REASONS >why more GMs play a move, even though its scoring percentage might be a little >lower, are found with a deeper study.) > >P.P.S. I was stuck with a permanent unwillingness to make the decisions required >to build a repertoire. I bought some powerful software tools... I can trust them >while eliminating the coarse choices... But the finer judgements are still a >matter of GM opinion. Fortunately for our game, the solution to chess is not >available yet. > >P.P.P.S. For building a repertoire, more effective than this attempt at basic >research, would be to just pick a player you like, and make a repertoire >database from his games (while watching the sample size!) I agree with you completely but the whole exercise of building a repertoire is to force you to learn the openings. With the strength of today's programs like Junior 5 and Rebel 10 and with their solid evaluations, even players like IM Larry Kaufmann use the engine evaluations to help them judge a position. With extensive opening prep you indeed can build an almost bullet proof opening rep if you are willing to spend the time. Whether you commit it to memory or whether you actually use an editable book in an opening book editor is your choice, but the hard work of going up and down the tree branches remains. Correspondence players will tell you that their game is 98% going up and down the tree branches so that a 2000 positional player can play at a 2300 or higher level of correspondence chess merely by going up and down the tree analysis if he is willing to put an enormous amount of time into each move. OTB players should do the same thing in their opening prep for OTB tournaments. But most of us are too lazy or can't spare the time to do this. -- Komputer Korner
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.