Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 16:33:01 02/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2005 at 12:38:01, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 20, 2005 at 11:07:06, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>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 > >Ok > >I understand what you mean. >I wrote: > >"The facts are that as long as the difference between engines is not very big a >book may be important factor in winning tournaments." > >It should be >"the facts are that book was an important factor in tournaments in the past and >the difference between engines was not very big." > >> >> >>> >>>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. > >Yes >I did not claim that I discovered something new. > >> >>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 > >I say that it is dependent on what you want. >Book is important to achieve what is significant for you. >Book is not important to achieve what is more significant for me that is >improving the engine. I like to win and you dont plan to win: What is the sense to participate in Tournament if you dont plant to win? > >I believe that at the level of movei winning CCT7 was practically impossible >task for it and the best it could do with better book is maybe second place. > >If somebody volunteer to try to help it to get better place in tournaments in >the future then (s)he is welcome to try to do it but I do not plan to spend much >time about it. After all your declarations, you have sowed your own tomb. Well, You had already been buried yourself several years ago. > >I believe that other programmers also in most cases do not spend time on editing >the book manually and let another person to do the work if they are lucky to >find somebody to help them. > Good Authors know what a book can mean. You will learn that in 20 years perhaps. >They do not say that book is unimportant(and I guess it was an unsuccesful >sentence by me that may cause me problems to find volunteers for that task) but >they also do not spend much time about book. > I doubt that you find people willing to help you after you have pointed out here. I mean people who do a hard work with book: tuning by hand, testing every variation, etc. Anybody can generate a random books, only some persons have the patience to do a hard work. Well, see you in 20 years!
This page took 0 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.