Author: Mike S.
Date: 07:45:33 02/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
This is the text of an older posting, replying to Kurt U. (who uses this book in a big tournament) who had translated the main parts of my description for the 5moves.ctg: A new, "less shorter" short book for ChessBase programs 5moves.ctg. Book depth 5 moves or 10 half-moves, 65.243 positions, data base of the book generated out of 250.000 games with players having at least 2350 Elo and game length between 20 and 80 moves, no manual adjustments but Michael let the book learn with over 30.000 computer games (1990-2003). The book option (F4) should be set to "normal" to allow enough variety. Download: http://members.aon.at/computerschach/5moves.zip (1,43 MB zipped, almost 5 MB on HD) (my reply:) Thanks Kurt, you have mentioned all the important infos. I can add that I've tried to check carefully for illegal moves in the database it's based on, removing quite a number of them (I don't know if these would have been imported into the tree, causing problems). It includes moves from historical games too, and even Elo performances for them, because I've let calculate Elo ratings for these. Also, I want to emphasize that it is indeed crucial to use the *normal* F4 book options for a usage that makes sense. @Sarah, some elaborations: It is intended to be used in "book-neutral" engine matches and tournaments, where every engine uses the same book. I think it is more attractive than usual sets of openings variants, giving more variety, and also the unpleasant effect of too long book variants is avoided. Kurt and others have critzised this, when virtually no middlegame exists in computer games. With the 5move.ctg, engines have theory support up to the 10th ply (sometimes a bit less), and must finish the opening themselves. This may be the downside from the engines viewpoint, but OTOH hand they can develope their own middlegame in these games. Also, the user gets more engine creativity to see right from the beginning of the game. Due to the creation process and because I'm no theory expert, some newer refutations of common moves of the past may be missing (or may not have proper probabilities, as refutations typically will have appeared much less often). No opening theory which wasn't tried in master games yet, is included. - But I hope these are minor problems. Some blitz tests have been made, i.e. by Kurt with 100 (!) games, and only very few evals bigger than +/- 1.00 have been found among the first calculated moves. Regards, M.Scheidl
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.