Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 17:05:27 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 15:57:20, Uri Blass wrote: >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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Peter >>>>>> >>>>>>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 >>>>>>experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>>Arturo. >>>>> >>>>>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 >>>>>games. >>>> >>>>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 >>>Peter >> >>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 >games). > >Uri I am not saying anything about expected results. I said that Peter Berger was very important for Crafty in that Tournament. The rest is not relevant.
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.