Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Most brilliant novelty from cct7 Witchess-Arasan

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 12:57:20 02/15/05

Go up one level in this thread

On February 15, 2005 at 15:09:14, Arturo Ochoa wrote:

>On February 15, 2005 at 14:18:16, Peter Berger wrote:
>>On February 15, 2005 at 14:03:38, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>>>On February 15, 2005 at 09:29:58, Peter Berger wrote:
>>>>On February 15, 2005 at 06:46:04, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>>>>>On February 15, 2005 at 02:56:54, Peter Berger wrote:
>>>>>>On February 14, 2005 at 20:08:42, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>>>>>>>On February 14, 2005 at 19:54:03, Peter Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>>Yes, you opposed this point of view multiple times before in discussions
>>>>>>>>with Uri , but I think you never managed to score.
>>>>>>>Of, I have managed to score several games during the year 2004.
>>>>>>That's just a misunderstanding, because I worded badly :). My "scoring" only
>>>>>>applied to the discussions, not to the quality of your work on the opening book.
>>>>>>Btw - it's not trivial to think of a good and practical experiment to setup to
>>>>>>show who is right.
>>>>>Well, I have already done such an experiment and I know who will give the
>>>>>easiest point. It is great because it will mean easy points.
>>>>>However, I would not spend again valuable time repeating the same nonsense
>>>>I think you can't really do such a test properly on your own. And it would be so
>>>>extremely time-consuming to do in a realistic way, that I doubt anyone has ever
>>>>really done it.
>>>>You mentioned the major problem I see in another post, learning as done by a
>>>>book author. This is a factor that has to be taken into account.
>>>>If you take your opening book as prepared for some major event, it is probably
>>>>nearly 100% deterministic at start of some round. If you run it against an
>>>>automatically learning book in longer matches to get a measure for the quality
>>>>of your work, it will get beaten badly. It might do well in the first few games,
>>>>until the opponent finds some hole ( which in this case means just some line
>>>>where it can beat "your" engine) - then it will repeat it in the following
>>>How do you know that a book mine is so "deterministic"? How do you base your
>>>facts in more suppositions without any proof? Well, I can argue that I have done
>>>such tests but I wont  reveal how I do such tests.
>>It was an assumption, because it is just reasonable to have a deterministic book
>>at the start of a given game. Why throw dices if you have an idea which move is
>>best in a given situation ? This doesn't mean that you don't have several
>>alternatives prepared. Of course there are other ways to do things, no doubt.
>>>>This is not a realistic test of what would happen in a tournament.
>>>>But if you allow yourself to update the book during rounds, you have to allow
>>>>your opponent to do the same. Else it is not realistic again. Even
>>>>engines/authors who have a little book ,that is much shorter but every move
>>>>checked, will react to what happens in the tournament games. E.g. Uri chose to
>>>>just switch books after watching a movei opening he didn't like in cct7.
>>>>The difference between a highly optimized book and one that just has few
>>>>adaptions is mostly in quantity in this discussion. While the optimized book
>>>>will usually have a few thousand manually entered lines the latter might have
>>>>only sth up to 50 ( numbers arbitrary chosen). The question is if you can be
>>>>sure that with the huge number of lines you don't add more garbage than quality
>>>Well, As you said "usually" and  your book was one thousand lines book. My book
>>>is bigger than only 1000 lines.
>>>This is not a relevant question because I dont generate a random book. My book
>>>has over 200000 lines added by hand. Sometimes, my decision about line has not
>>>been convenient. Maybe, you choose arbitraly  your numbes. I dont know how you
>>>od it and I am not interested in. My books are higly checked by hands.
>>>Sometimes, I dont have enough time to test them with the engines and it possibly
>>>means a bad result. But your question is not relevant of how I do my books.
>>I think we are getting nowhere here. I wasn't trying to steal your ideas on how
>>you do books or test them, but you obviously got this impression. This was meant
>>to be a thought experiment - oh and yes, "mine" is bigger than 1000 too :)
>>Be well
>From all this brain storming, I can remark just one fact: Your performance in
>CCC2004 was outstanding and nobody can deny that. :)

I think that Crafty did the expected result in WCCC.
I think that the biggest surprise of WCCC was the performance of Jonny2.64
and it can be explained by luck or by a good book(I did not analyze Jonny


This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.