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 0.01 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.