Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The importance of opening books -- a simple experiment

Author: Dan Honeycutt

Date: 13:09:21 02/21/05

Go up one level in this thread


On February 21, 2005 at 15:59:26, Sune Fischer wrote:

>On February 21, 2005 at 11:20:17, Dan Honeycutt wrote:
>
>>On February 21, 2005 at 02:32:08, Sune Fischer wrote:
>>
>>>On February 21, 2005 at 00:41:37, Dan Honeycutt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I understood 1 vs 4 but not necessarily a repeating a losing line where, like
>>>>you say, the difference can be anything you want.  More like engine X plays in a
>>>>tournament with book 4 and achieves a rating of 2700 - has chances to win.  If
>>>>it enters the same tournament with book 1 it will achieve a rating of ~ 2000 -
>>>>no chance to win.
>>>
>>>Sure, but you don't have to be 700 Elo weaker to have practicly zero chance.
>>>
>>>Even if you are just 100 Elo weaker than the top guys you have extremely slim
>>>chances of winning a long tournament.
>>>
>>I don't disagree.  But Vincent's statement was the chances of the engine without
>>book was "zero", not "slim".
>
>I doubt Vincent would ever use the word "slim", he'd always call it zero :)
>
>As you point out according to Vincent the 700 Elo means _zero_ chance to win.
>This must be logically equivalent to saying the opponent has a  _guaranteed_ win
>out of book, this can only happen if the opponent can resolve to a mate.
>
>Even without book all you need is a bit of learning or you can just randomize
>the opening moves a bit, then I see no way to get a 700 Elo advantage.
>
>>>From that POV getting the best book possible is of course important, still how
>>>does this prove book 4 is worth 700 Elo?
>>>
>>I've seen no proof that book 4 is worth 700 points - in fact I strongly doubt
>>it.  My comment at the start of the thread was that the test by Tord did not
>>disprove the statement.
>
>It can never be disproven, because if you fail it will be because the book "just
>wasn't good enough". The experiment is a waste of time as it can't be proven to
>be true either if it is false, which it probably is.
>

The right test (by that I mean no book vs a tournament book built by Arturo,
Sandro or the like) would disprove it to me.  Whether it would disprove it to
Vincent ...

Dan H.



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.