Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Arturo Ochoa

Date: 05:59:36 02/16/05

Go up one level in this thread

On February 15, 2005 at 13:25:05, Uri Blass wrote:

>On February 15, 2005 at 12:59:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>On February 15, 2005 at 12:40:22, John Merlino wrote:
>>>On February 15, 2005 at 12:36:10, John Merlino wrote:
>>>>>I hope that you realize 750 rating points means roughly 0% chance.
>>>>>What is the chance in YOUR opinion a program without book in 2005 has to win a
>>>>>world champs event?
>>>>>If you say 0%, that means 700+ rating points.
>>>>I'll try to answer all of your posts in this one response, so as to not have to
>>>>bounce around this thread.
>>>>The obvious flaw in your argument above is that you are all of a sudden talking
>>>>about winning a championship, but *I* am talking about using ratings to
>>>>determine the statistical likelihood of SCORING POINTS in a single game, which
>>>>has been the point of this discussion, unless I am grossly mistaken.
>>>>As somebody else alluded to in this thread, you can be less than 300 points
>>>>behind the highest ranked person in a tournament. But if you are the
>>>>lowest-ranked player in this tournament, and there are a lot of other
>>>>participants, your statistical chances of winning the tournament are practically
>>>>So, I agree with you that a program going into the computer world championships
>>>>without a book has close to a 0% chance of winning the tournament. But this
>>>>would also be true if all programs were of theoretically equal strength, and not
>>>>having a book only decresed the strength by 300 points.
>>>>You also refer to a human playing some very large number of games (I think you
>>>>said 5000?) against a program without a book, eventually allowing the human (or
>>>>engine with learning) to beat the program close to 100% of the time. This is
>>>>also WAY outside the boundaries of this discussion. But the clear refutation of
>>>>that argument would be to say "Maybe so, but what happens in the first 10-20
>>>>games of that test?" I'd bet that your theoretical human, who, let's say, is 700
>>>>points weaker than the engine (just to pull that number out of the air), would
>>>>lose almost all of those games.
>>>>Finally, I'm not sure why you are all of a sudden talking about Chessmaster not
>>>>entering a world championships. Admittedly, I did bring up my very brief tests
>>>>with Chessmaster on ICC that took place well over two years ago, just to provide
>>>>some evidence that a strong program without a book can still perform decently
>>>>against other strong engines, even occasionally beating them. But as for the
>>>>reason that Chessmaster does not enter the WC, you should ask Johan what it is,
>>>>because it has always been his decision.
>>>>I haven't been involved in Chessmaster in more than two years, so I can't
>>>>comment on the current situation. I wouldn't even venture to guess as to what it
>>>>might be -- but I'm sure you know his e-mail address, so why don't you just ask
>>>>him, instead of bringing up something that has nothing to do with this topic?
>>>One more point. Even Arturo has been referring to this "well-tuned book" being
>>>specifically prepared for a single opponent. And this is all well and good, and
>>>of course preparation for your opponent is vital. However, could this one book
>>>be used equally successfully against ALL opponents in a tournament. Clearly the
>>>answer is no, and it might even be detrimental against other opponents.
>>>So, once again, I think we may be talking about different things. You and Arturo
>>>(and others) are talking about a book that is designed to be played against
>>>another specific engine, and Uri and I (and others) are talking about one
>>>"generically strong book" that is intended to be used against all opponents.
>>Uri doesn't know what he talks about anyway of course. He still thinks 1.h3 is a
>>good book to test ones engine with.
>>I never saw him take that back.
>>This discussion goes way over his head.
>>My point is very simple.
>>You say: "close to 0%".
>>The point being made is that a program at todays hardware (and not some
>>imaginary  hardware from the year 2100, nor a hardcoded tournament book in the
>>executable like rebel had it) has a hard 0% chance to win the world champs.
>>I specifically mean world champs as the strongest opponents show up there. Not
>>just some amateurs.
>>So i very clearly want the discussion here that it is a hard 0% and not 'close'
>>to 0%. Close to 0% is also 10%.
>>It is not 10%. It is not 5%. It is 0%. And not 0,001%. It just never has
>>happened. And it never WILL happen. There is only 3 possible results in chess.
>>You win a game, you draw a game, or you lose a game.
>>So we cannot calculate with 0.00000001% if there never is going to be
>>There have been last 9 years precisely 2 winners. Shredder or Junior.
>>So chances 'near zero' is not a good definition at all.
>>We want hard formulations. As you win a title or you don't win a title.
>>It has 0% happened so far that an engine without book won that title.
>>It has a 0% chance.
>>A hard 0% chance.
>There is no proof to hard 0% chance.
>If the chances for movei with no book is only 0.001% you will probably
>do not see it winning even after 1000 tournaments(because it means one win for
>100,000 tournaments).

Since you said this, your
chance is 0%. No time for the book, no chance to get a title.

This page took 0.04 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.