Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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.
>>>>
>>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Vincent
>>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>>http://www.uschesschampionship.com/news/crosstable.htm
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>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 0.02 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.