Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 08:07:06 02/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2005 at 10:40:25, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 19, 2005 at 20:38:22, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>On February 19, 2005 at 19:32:33, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 19, 2005 at 18:46:53, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>> >>>>>Note that I never claimed that a good book cannot help an engine to win a >>>>>tournament. >>>>>If people understood it from me then I did a bad explaining job. >>>>>I will try to do better explaining job in this post. >>>>> >>>> >>>>??????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!! Go to (*)(**) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I said that I consider book as unimportant and I said that an engine that is >>>> >>>>(*) unimportant = not meaning much, not having value or significance >>>> >>> >>>I agree with the definition but the question what is unimportant is also a >>>question of opinion >>> >>>reasons for me to consider book as unimportasnt are the following: >>>1)not considering the target of winning tournament as an important target >>>2)thinking that it is possible to improve engine instead of book and get better >>>results >>>If shredder9 with book is weaker than some future Shredder19 without book then >>>it is going to show point 2. >>> >> >>(1) Impossible that it happens simply. Shredder is always acompanied by its >>tuned and tested book in official Tournaments. In the particular case of >>Shredder, both the engine and the book have been improved and they also >>constituted a pretty well tested piece of software. The Tournaments have showed >>that the book of Mr. Sandro Necchi has also helped. >> >>Saying that the Shredder´s book has been unimportant is not true ( I would not >>like to use "a big lie" since it is rude term). > >I agree that shredder will always play in tournament by book. > >The point is that even if it has 50% chances to win without book then it is >still better to have 90% chances to win with book. > >I agree that we will not be able to test shredder19 without book against >shredder9 with book so we will unable to test if shredder19 without book is >stronger. > >> >> >>>>(1) Contradiction: "I did not claim that a book cannot help an engine...." .... >>>>"I consider the book as unimportant..." >>>> >>>>(**) read the meaning of unimportant(*). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>strong enough has good chances to win even with 1.h3 but >>>> >>>>(2) I have also suggested that 1. f3!! and 2. g4!! would be a lot better. :)) >>>>The tops engine are already prepared for all those idiot moves including 1. h3? >>>>and 1. f3?? >>> >>>This is only an example. >>> >>>The idea is clear. >>>There are many ways to get the opponent out of book without lost position and it >>>is not hard to find some line to take the opponent out of book with equality or >>>almost equality with white. >>> >> >>(2) An equal position may not be good for a chess program but great for other >>chess program. An equal position can already mean a lost game for an engine. >>That is one of the advantages of a tuned book: The engine that can get positions >>where it will behave OK and the opponent will "feel" bad, it means the opponents >>will make some mistake. The positions "equal" in chess is a term very relative: >>If Engine A gets a position where it has a clear plan but the Engine B doesnt >>know what to do, you know what the result will be. > >Of course but in order to know that the opponent will "feel" bad you need to >know the opponent. > >If some strong engine is hidden by it's author and made a very big improvement >then you cannot know it's weaknesses. > >> >>If you also give such an advantage with initial idiot moves such as 1. h3?!, of >>course, Shredder will smash anything. >> >>>>(5) Shredder, Junior and Fritz han showed this is not true over the latest years >>>>in Official Tournaments. All of them use strong book tuned by hand. I have not >>>>seen the first case from a no-book engine winning an official Tournament. Where >>>>are the facts? >>>> >>>>AO >>> >>>The facts are that as long as the difference between engines is not very big a >>>book may be important factor in winning tournaments. (******) >>> >> >>Incorrect: Unless you call Blasstradamus, you cannot base your suppositions on >>things that have never happened. >> >>facts <> things that have never happened >>facts = things that have really happened > > >I do not see what incorrect in what I said. Go to (******) facts <> things that have never happened facts = things that have really happened > >I guess that you also agree that a book can be a decisive factor in winning >tournament when the difference between engines is not very big. > Mr. Blass, must I repeat what I have said about one hundred times?!!!! >I guess that even in case that there is going to be a big difference in playing >strength between engines the best engine will use book because it is better to >be sure in 99% in victory then to be sure in 60% in victory so not using book by >the winner is something that I do not expect to happen. You have not discovered anything new that what I have been telling for over 40 messages. A tune and tested book is important and it can help the engine to wint games. For the fith time: In my private tests from the 100% of the games won by Diep, 30% was a direct win from the book. Why dont you read? (Lack of comprension?!!) More ????!!!!! > Well, you said a book is _unimportant_ (*). Now you say, it is important. What is your position then? I put here some symbols ?!!!***???!!!! >>>>(*) unimportant = not meaning much, not having value or significance
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.