Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Arturo Ochoa

Date: 10:48:56 02/16/05

Go up one level in this thread

On February 16, 2005 at 10:41:29, Uri Blass wrote:

>On February 16, 2005 at 09:31:31, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>>On February 15, 2005 at 11:57:27, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>On February 15, 2005 at 11:21:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>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.
>>>>A is worst. If you lose 1 game you lose 5 in a row.
>>>>Please look at world champs 2004. Even our friend Kure in round 10 against diep
>>>>tried to repeat with fritz a line which diep played in round 2 against falcon.
>>>>Lucky Arturo had a novelty (Nc5!) somewhere at move 15 or something.
>>>>Even with a good optimized book they try to repeat lines.
>>>>Now if you play without book, each game will happen the same moves. And you get
>>>>in the same bad type of position.
>>>>Good example is 1.d4,d5 2.c4,dxc4.
>>>>Suppose the engine plays b4 always to cover c4, as soon as they figure that out
>>>>you play b5 with black, they will go 3.e3 and the rest of the games you will
>>>>lose in a world champs.
>>>>>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.
>>>>>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.
>>>>Not at all, no computer will consider f3.
>>>>>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 ?
>>>>>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.
>>>>>It's a bit late - hope the general idea still transports.
>>>>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.
>>>What is the chances of a player that has rating of more than 400 elo weaker than
>>>the best player to win the USA championship?
>>>The best rating was for kamsky(2777 and his rating was too high considering the
>>>fact that he quitted for years from chess)
>>>What is the best player under 2377
>>>You can look at the table.
>>>WGM Rusudan Goletianui scored only 4.5/9 and she could know at the beginning of
>>>the tournament that her chances to win the men title in the USA final
>>>championship are practically 0.
>>>You do not need 700 elo difference to know that you have practically 0 chances
>>Oh, I thought you said that a no book engine could win a title. Now, you change
>>your mind.
>>Now, the book has some importance for you. Interesting. Your position changes
>>from post to post. Are you able to hold an unique position?
>1)I responded to vincent who claimed that the book is 700 elo relative to no
>book in this thread.
>2)I still claim that if the engine is strong enough it has chances to win even
>without book.

To win what? A title? A bliz game? A game against a beginner engine? :)

>I never claimed that my engine together with the hardware that I used was strong
>enough and I think that even with better book it had no chances to win WCCC.
>I also do not claim to know if the best commercial of today is strong enough to
>win WCCC of today with no book.
>The value of book in rating points is of course dependent on the engine and on
>the conditions.

You begin to sink in what I am talking about..... Other change of position on
your behalf. Are you changes of position deterministic?

>playing a match of 2000 games is something that never happen in practice so it
>is not important for rating that is decided based on smaller number of games
>against different opponents and even in these conditions if you take shredder
>and not movei the value of book is clearly less than 700 elo.

How do you know? You say what somebody says is unreal and impossible. How do you
know that it is impossible? I am talking about your position about the no-book
matter. You have said several times that a book is a not relevant component.
However, you play aroung with your word. You fix one position and then you
change it suddenly.

How can you know that I have run such a test? You support what you say with
proofs and how I can nuy your position? It is just impossible that you can sell
your assumptions based on "I believe, I think.... etc......"

The matter is who can be serious with such assumptions? :)

Go ahead...... :))))

This page took 0.01 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.