Stephen Ham wrote:
One example of broad books is Shredder's. An example of a narrow book is Junior 9's. The latter is a terrible book that seems neither objectively good, nor tuned to the engine. For example, why force Junior to play the Four Pawns attack against the King's Indian and the Saemisch Attack against the Nimzo, without giving it good lines, and deep lines, to help it? Instead, the book usually just ends abruptly in bad positions.
Sorry for rambling, Mike.
All the best,
Steve
Now that's sure to attract the attention of those who have always said that Junior's book adds rating points to its play when compared to using a generic book with it.
Stephen Ham wrote: Broad books are probably written for commercial reasons, to appeal to a wide market that demands variety.
As far as I know, until now the good commercial books try to combine the two main aspects mentioned, more convincing or less convincing. All I know offer only ONE 'all purpose' book.
But for you it's certainly not a problem anyway, because obviously you know what you are doing as an advanced chess software user (including creating your own book), and you seem to be a player with strength above average and very good opening knowledge. But that (or all of that at the same time) is probably not typical for a chess software user, in general.
Stephen Ham wrote:
One example of broad books is Shredder's. An example of a narrow book is Junior 9's. The latter is a terrible book that seems neither objectively good, nor tuned to the engine. For example, why force Junior to play the Four Pawns attack against the King's Indian and the Saemisch Attack against the Nimzo, without giving it good lines, and deep lines, to help it? Instead, the book usually just ends abruptly in bad positions.
Sorry for rambling, Mike.
All the best,
Steve
Now that's sure to attract the attention of those who have always said that Junior's book adds rating points to its play when compared to using a generic book with it.
Hi Graham,
Did people actually claim that? If so, then that's amazing!
My experience with Junior 9 is that it was almost crippled by its book, dropping games in almost every encounter with a Nimzo and King's Indian...to mention but two examples from many.
It's odd though that Junior 9 had such a bad book, though, since I think GM Alterman wrote it. And, he's an opening theory maven, and also knows how chess engines operate. Plus, Amir is a very bright guy too. But...the results (in this case, negative results) speak for themselves.
Stephen Ham wrote: Broad books are probably written for commercial reasons, to appeal to a wide market that demands variety.
As far as I know, until now the good commercial books try to combine the two main aspects mentioned, more convincing or less convincing. All I know offer only ONE 'all purpose' book.
But for you it's certainly not a problem anyway, because obviously you know what you are doing as an advanced chess software user (including creating your own book), and you seem to be a player with strength above average and very good opening knowledge. But that (or all of that at the same time) is probably not typical for a chess software user, in general.
Hi Mike,
You're far too kind. I'm really not an advanced software user - much closer to a computer dummy. But, I do know how to play chess.
I think that when engines compete in various contests, the engine authors surely use special books that are:
1) narrow and selective in order to minimize the chance of losses and positions the computer doesn't understand, while maximizing positive
results
2) tuned to positions that feature the best aspects of the engine while avoiding exposure to positions they don't understand
But, for commercial purposes, when engines are sold they come with much broader books in order to offer the variety of openings that the public generally wants. So, I agree with you about the concept of an "all purpose" book, Mike.
Stephen Ham wrote:
One example of broad books is Shredder's. An example of a narrow book is Junior 9's. The latter is a terrible book that seems neither objectively good, nor tuned to the engine. For example, why force Junior to play the Four Pawns attack against the King's Indian and the Saemisch Attack against the Nimzo, without giving it good lines, and deep lines, to help it? Instead, the book usually just ends abruptly in bad positions.
Sorry for rambling, Mike.
All the best,
Steve
Now that's sure to attract the attention of those who have always said that Junior's book adds rating points to its play when compared to using a generic book with it.
Hi Graham,
Did people actually claim that? If so, then that's amazing!
My experience with Junior 9 is that it was almost crippled by its book, dropping games in almost every encounter with a Nimzo and King's Indian...to mention but two examples from many.
It's odd though that Junior 9 had such a bad book, though, since I think GM Alterman wrote it. And, he's an opening theory maven, and also knows how chess engines operate. Plus, Amir is a very bright guy too. But...the results (in this case, negative results) speak for themselves.
All the best,
Steve
All the time Steve and a lot of people too. They might be brave enough to say something when they read your thoughts!
Stephen Ham wrote:
One example of broad books is Shredder's. An example of a narrow book is Junior 9's. The latter is a terrible book that seems neither objectively good, nor tuned to the engine. For example, why force Junior to play the Four Pawns attack against the King's Indian and the Saemisch Attack against the Nimzo, without giving it good lines, and deep lines, to help it? Instead, the book usually just ends abruptly in bad positions.
Sorry for rambling, Mike.
All the best,
Steve
Now that's sure to attract the attention of those who have always said that Junior's book adds rating points to its play when compared to using a generic book with it.
Hi Graham,
Did people actually claim that? If so, then that's amazing!
My experience with Junior 9 is that it was almost crippled by its book, dropping games in almost every encounter with a Nimzo and King's Indian...to mention but two examples from many.
It's odd though that Junior 9 had such a bad book, though, since I think GM Alterman wrote it. And, he's an opening theory maven, and also knows how chess engines operate. Plus, Amir is a very bright guy too. But...the results (in this case, negative results) speak for themselves.
All the best,
Steve
All the time Steve and a lot of people too. They might be brave enough to say something when they read your thoughts!
Regards, Graham.
Hi Graham,
I guess we move in different circles, buddy.
I recall a lot of posts here when Junior 9's SSDF rating was first posted. Like me, the condemnation of Junior's book was severe, with many electing to replace it with almost any other book, and seeing improvements.
Many claimed that Junior would have had a higher SSDF score with almost any other book. As proof, they posted SSDF games where Junior 9 repeatedly lost as white against Nimzos and Kings Indians.
For its day, I think Junior 9 was a good engine though. I had the pleasure of reviewing Junior 9 for Chess Cafe after the engine entered the market.
Stephen Ham wrote:
One example of broad books is Shredder's. An example of a narrow book is Junior 9's. The latter is a terrible book that seems neither objectively good, nor tuned to the engine. For example, why force Junior to play the Four Pawns attack against the King's Indian and the Saemisch Attack against the Nimzo, without giving it good lines, and deep lines, to help it? Instead, the book usually just ends abruptly in bad positions.
Sorry for rambling, Mike.
All the best,
Steve
Now that's sure to attract the attention of those who have always said that Junior's book adds rating points to its play when compared to using a generic book with it.
They werent talking about Junior 9's book, they were talking about Junior 10's book instead. Some tests conducted by per even concluded that Junior is the engine that is most sensitive to opening lines.
Stephen Ham wrote:
One example of broad books is Shredder's. An example of a narrow book is Junior 9's. The latter is a terrible book that seems neither objectively good, nor tuned to the engine. For example, why force Junior to play the Four Pawns attack against the King's Indian and the Saemisch Attack against the Nimzo, without giving it good lines, and deep lines, to help it? Instead, the book usually just ends abruptly in bad positions.
Sorry for rambling, Mike.
All the best,
Steve
Now that's sure to attract the attention of those who have always said that Junior's book adds rating points to its play when compared to using a generic book with it.
They werent talking about Junior 9's book, they were talking about Junior 10's book instead. Some tests conducted by per even concluded that Junior is the engine that is most sensitive to opening lines.
Thanks Tony,definitely my thoughts regarding the issue,but I was afraid from Graham
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
