Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 16:38:12 02/14/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2005 at 19:18:58, Peter Berger wrote: >On February 14, 2005 at 18:57:07, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>Well, if you think that Uri´s posting are not ludicrous, we are alll entering in >>the absurd world of Uri. That is. It is a waste of time to repeat again and >>again in this Forum, that a book tuned for a specific engine is a bid advantage >>against other program or a GM. > >I am afraid that the absurd world of Uri is the one I am living in too. > >There are three kinds of opening books: > >a.) no book >b.) random book >c.) optimized book > >b.) should be the worst selection here for a strong engine, worse than a.), but >it might be hard to prove, and it will not apply to all lines. > >c.) will outscore b.) much worse of course IMHO. That's the best choice against >the worst. > >Trouble (or art?) is to determine how to do c.) . In the past this was hard, >hard work, requiring much patience , thousands of moves to be entered in the >book, but maybe this kind of opening book has some disadvantages by now. For me >this seems to be Uri's major point, and I think it is a valid one. > Well, I wont reveal how to do it because I dont want to reveal how Diep was prepared in 2004 as well as Zappa in 2005. I see you work with Crafty as a bright work. I dont want to know how you did it. >To improve on the engine's own choice it is not enough to just enter moves into >opening books or to do some blundercheck. Think of the Kramnik-Leko Marshall >game - this could have been played at a computerchess event too. > No, I have my own method of book testing and build debugging that I won´t reveal here. >The interesting challenge would be to run a highly optimized opening book >against one generated from a random source with maybe 20-50 changes altogether - >is it really clear who would win this challenge ? > I have done it before and I got a remerkable difference in the score. Think what the tested engine was ;) >There might be two or three book authors (the famous guys) who go beyond, have >gotten rid of all automated lines (important!) and are competing with the >grandmasters themselves with the help of the engines now. But from what I can >see nearly all still start from some automated base, and this has become a major >reliability by now. > I am not saying that I am the best booker on the earth. I am only saying that the theory of the no books sucks and will suck. That is. >It's a bit late - hope the general idea still transports. > >Peter Not really. It is presmise already debated previously. It doesnt provide a new light about the thopic. Sorry. Arturo.
This page took 0.01 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.