which program is really the champion ..100% .withou books ..?

yes, really SF., he did better in tcec 8 ..what do you think...???

sf is more than 5% beter from k

Without books, you need to play with learning enabled, otherwise it's pointless running more than two games (reversed colours).

@Graham Banks wrote:

Without books, you need to play with learning enabled, otherwise it's pointless running more than two games (reversed colours).

yeah, that's the idea, get the 100% engine,with learning enabled, there are only two engines, with that level..and ,and they selected really consider openings.....so I can select the best lines for motors, engines created by motors.. no human chess ........the best engine is the winner..their openings, middle game and end...no tables..motor vs motor

I would have thought that the TCEC tournament would have been a good enough test for everyone? However after watching some of the London Chess Classic it is
great to see that even now engines sometimes miss what the human players can see....in other words it helps to be able to use our own brains....sometimes!

YES in fact the first TCEC stage 8.1 was not books, but with tables..no human influence anly in tablebases...I'm using these openings, and change many movements...I propose someone of experience. make a championship of this type..

@ADY125 wrote:

YES in fact the first  TCEC stage 8.1  was not books, but with tables..no human influence anly in tablebases...I'm using these openings, and change many movements...I propose someone of experience. make a championship of this type..

It would be worse than watching paint dry.

@ADY125 wrote:

YES in fact the first  TCEC stage 8.1  was not books, but with tables..no human influence anly in tablebases...I'm using these openings, and change many movements...I propose someone of experience. make a championship of this type..

 

You need books...just limit how deep they are allowed to play "in the book" of course you want the contest to be about the chess engines and not the books
a book only will not "win" the chess game ( ex. Prodeo engine) AR

The way I run my tournaments is theme tournaments, usually 5-9 moves book or where diversity starts to split off with good book moves. Each engine has a black and white with the same starting position. I put for example, 30 different openings incase an engine or two play well in a particular opening or two, this adds diversification and I think equalizes the tournaments as much as can be. As Mr.Banks mentioned, this gives only one black and one white per opening as without learn on any more than that is pointless

@Graham Banks wrote:

@ADY125 wrote:

YES in fact the first  TCEC stage 8.1  was not books, but with tables..no human influence anly in tablebases...I'm using these openings, and change many movements...I propose someone of experience. make a championship of this type..

It would be worse than watching paint dry.

ok, we include, end tables, actually the lines created by the engines, without books will be well useful.. i have a good colection .for my book..with many new movements.....

@supersharp77 wrote:

@ADY125 wrote:

YES in fact the first  TCEC stage 8.1  was not books, but with tables..no human influence anly in tablebases...I'm using these openings, and change many movements...I propose someone of experience. make a championship of this type..

 

You need books...just limit how deep they are allowed to play "in the book" of course you want the contest to be about the chess engines and not the books
a book only will not "win" the chess game ( ex. Prodeo engine) AR

The book, created a road prior, to the engine....and it is a road created by mens...perhaps these engines, can not do better ..? I am sure that many openings will be improved .

@sharpov wrote:

The way I run my tournaments is theme tournaments, usually 5-9 moves book or where diversity starts to split off with good book moves. Each engine has a black and white with the same starting position. I put for example, 30 different openings incase an engine or two play well in a particular opening or two, this adds diversification and I think equalizes the tournaments as much as can be. As Mr.Banks mentioned, this gives only one black and one white per opening as without learn on any more than that is pointless

with the learning function, the engine will look after several games the best openings I play with black Qwen defense, and by using a book of only two movements i created different lines to my blitz

To develop openings learn is good but it effects tournaments results. So I play no TB's or learn on.

I also as Mr. Banks pointed out run no more than a black and white per opening, usually using 32 engines and 30 different openings, over 29,000 games per tournament.

Last edited by sharpov on Sun Dec 06, 2015 7:31 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)

What Banks is telling is just a lie. I play without books and although the fact that engines prefer e4 or d4 we can see Nf3 and even e4 or d4 have different continuations. The openings without books are not deterministic as you may think. And what do you want? h4? a4? makes no sense in high quality chess.

BTW...IMO is much better without books...specially at an event like TCEC, because books can be biased towards some position that an engine plays better than other. The whole tournament can be compromised just because someone can choose the openings giving an engine the advantage.

Any case...if you are going to use books you can have many different continuations using a book with just 3 moves each side, would be enough to play c4, Nf3, d4, e4, and many variations from there.

@Masta wrote:

What Banks is telling is just a lie. I play without books and although the fact that engines prefer e4 or d4 we can see Nf3 and even e4 or d4 have different continuations. The openings without books are not deterministic as you may think. And what do you want? h4? a4? makes no sense in high quality chess.

BTW...IMO is much better without books...specially at an event like TCEC, because books can be biased towards some position that an engine plays better than other. The whole tournament can be compromised just because someone can choose the openings giving an engine the advantage.

Any case...if you are going to use books you can have many different continuations using a book with just 3 moves each side, would be enough to play c4, Nf3, d4, e4, and many variations from there.

THANKS That's the idea,BUT my English is very bad...

Everybody's opinion has value.

However:
- I don't deliberately lie to members.
- I don't appreciate some members going out of their way to be rude to me.

not my friend, is not intended ,you work hard for all..but it is only an opinion..

I agree, but I take theme positions and stop them at a certain number of moves. This is usually when the engines evaluate the position of not more than a +.50 threshold advantage for either side. I also try to stop my book moves when evaluations split/branch off to a selection of known good book moves. All of this, is an attempt to remove as much rating distortion as possible.

Right....

@Graham Banks wrote:

Everybody's opinion has value.

However:
- I don't deliberately lie to members.
- I don't appreciate some members going out of their way to be rude to me.

+1