| |
Main
Date: 12 Feb 2007 20:30:38
From: pascal
Subject: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
Hi,
I am trying to continue the developement of Scid (see
http://prolinux.free.fr/scid/) and I added a book feature (useful for
training and game annotation of course).
I generated my own books with Polyglot from PGN files :
- one with games with both players over 2400 ELO
- one with games with both players over 2600 ELO
The databases came from various places on Internet (2 to 3 millions
games, filtered by ELO to a few hundreds thousand games).
That's a start but maybe not the best for a *reference* book. I am far
from being an expert here. Maybe what I did is sufficient, may be not.
Do you know any pointer to such a book, with no copyright ?
Maybe someone has an hand made complete book out there ?
Pascal Georges
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 23:18:11
From: Emil Koch
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
"pascal" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to continue the developement of Scid (see
> http://prolinux.free.fr/scid/) and I added a book feature (useful for
> training and game annotation of course).
>
> I generated my own books with Polyglot from PGN files :
> - one with games with both players over 2400 ELO
> - one with games with both players over 2600 ELO
> The databases came from various places on Internet (2 to 3 millions games,
> filtered by ELO to a few hundreds thousand games).
>
Hi Pascal,
I agree thats a good intention. Best would be to offer the user a way to
create his own books within the UI like CB and Arena does.
So engines play only bookmoves from "B33" or "D44" and user
can train their favorite openings playing against one of the engines.
But most improvement would be to integrate Engines output,
list window and game notation into the main window. One window for all
database operations, another for all game related operations.
Game editions by right clicking on the game notation.
That would make handling much more easy and confusion about
to much different windows would be past.
At the end there would be a nearly bugfree prog with even more
functions than most others. Great !!
Emil
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 13:21:19
From: pascal
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
Emil Koch a �crit :
> "pascal" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:[email protected]...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am trying to continue the developement of Scid (see
>> http://prolinux.free.fr/scid/) and I added a book feature (useful for
>> training and game annotation of course).
>>
>> I generated my own books with Polyglot from PGN files :
>> - one with games with both players over 2400 ELO
>> - one with games with both players over 2600 ELO
>> The databases came from various places on Internet (2 to 3 millions games,
>> filtered by ELO to a few hundreds thousand games).
>>
>
> Hi Pascal,
> I agree thats a good intention. Best would be to offer the user a way to
> create his own books within the UI like CB and Arena does.
That was my intention when I noticed the code I used (taken from the
great program Polyglot from Fabien Letouzey) was not perfect and fail
importing some PGN games. This feature should have already been achieved
if I hadn't encountered, well ... crashes.
> So engines play only bookmoves from "B33" or "D44" and user
> can train their favorite openings playing against one of the engines.
This is (partially ?) done in the "tactical game" feature : you play
against a weakened engine (Phalanx) that simulates a player between 1200
and 2200 and you can choose an opening line to follow. See for details :
http://prolinux.free.fr/scid/scid_newfeatures.html#playcoach
For now the list of opening lines is limited but I personaly use it a
lot to train with the French Defense Winawer.
> But most improvement would be to integrate Engines output,
> list window and game notation into the main window. One window for all
> database operations, another for all game related operations.
> Game editions by right clicking on the game notation.
>
> That would make handling much more easy and confusion about
> to much different windows would be past.
I already thought about that : a better window integration. You are 100%
right it should be better and more user friendly, but some users (in
fact one) told me they prefer the current windowing system ...
> At the end there would be a nearly bugfree prog with even more
> functions than most others. Great !!
Thanks !
Pascal Georges
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 00:19:46
From: Emil Koch
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
> This is (partially ?) done in the "tactical game" feature : you play
> against a weakened engine (Phalanx) that simulates a player between 1200
> and 2200 and you can choose an opening line to follow. See for details :
> http://prolinux.free.fr/scid/scid_newfeatures.html#playcoach
> For now the list of opening lines is limited but I personaly use it a lot
> to train with the French Defense Winawer.
I would like to play against a engine around 2200 to 2500. couldnt
find the modified engine Phalanx in the Program folder, so I have
no idea about this feature but improving it further for easy handling
and a stronger engine could make it a mighty tool.Thats for sure.
> I already thought about that : a better window integration. You are 100%
> right it should be better and more user friendly, but some users (in fact
> one) told me they prefer the current windowing system ...
Many peaple, me too, pay nearly 200 bucks to have a userfriendly,
easy to understand Chessbase, but it is not bugfree and the updates
are nearly nonsens. Though i mostly work with CB.
On the other hand Your Scid-Vers. has it nearly all. Very good for
instance the lower priority on engines. That saves from program freezing.
If You muster good training skills that will be also be a great match.
But the many Windows, you always have to change the focus and you
often don't know where is what. And editing games on CB is very
effective.
If You work on the right nails Scid will become very worthy.
Thanks for responding
Emil
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 08:26:11
From: ppcur
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
On 12 Feb, 20:30, pascal <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to continue the developement of Scid (seehttp://prolinux.free.fr/scid/) and I added a book feature (useful for
> training and game annotation of course).
>
> I generated my own books with Polyglot from PGN files :
> - one with games with both players over 2400 ELO
> - one with games with both players over 2600 ELO
> The databases came from various places on Internet (2 to 3 millions
> games, filtered by ELO to a few hundreds thousand games).
>
> That's a start but maybe not the best for a *reference* book. I am far
> from being an expert here. Maybe what I did is sufficient, may be not.
>
> Do you know any pointer to such a book, with no copyright ?
> Maybe someone has an hand made complete book out there ?
>
> Pascal Georges
great job Pascal. can you explain how i can say to crafty to use the
open book and the tablebases under scid. I can use them in crafty, but
not under scid. many thanks. bye
|
| | |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 18:29:42
From: pascal
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
Hi,
For tablebases :
1. you must configure path to them : Options - > tablebase directory
2. you get info in Endgames - > Endgame tablebase window.
This is a great feature of Scid.
For openings :
I added an opening window that I think is more flexible than engine's
openings. More over UCI protocol states that opening phase should be
handled by the user interface. BUT you caught me : under windows I did
not check if Crafty "sees" its opening book and given the
pre-configuration of engines I set up for windows, it does not work. You
can fix it by editing Crafty configuration and setting the directory
parameter to
C:/Program Files/Scid-pg/engines/crafty-20.14/
WITHOUT the surrounding " I put for safety but that makes Crafty not see
its book files.
Pascal Georges
ppcur a �crit :
> On 12 Feb, 20:30, pascal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am trying to continue the developement of Scid (seehttp://prolinux.free.fr/scid/) and I added a book feature (useful for
>> training and game annotation of course).
>>
>> I generated my own books with Polyglot from PGN files :
>> - one with games with both players over 2400 ELO
>> - one with games with both players over 2600 ELO
>> The databases came from various places on Internet (2 to 3 millions
>> games, filtered by ELO to a few hundreds thousand games).
>>
>> That's a start but maybe not the best for a *reference* book. I am far
>> from being an expert here. Maybe what I did is sufficient, may be not.
>>
>> Do you know any pointer to such a book, with no copyright ?
>> Maybe someone has an hand made complete book out there ?
>>
>> Pascal Georges
>
> great job Pascal. can you explain how i can say to crafty to use the
> open book and the tablebases under scid. I can use them in crafty, but
> not under scid. many thanks. bye
>
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 12:50:24
From: Johnny T
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
pascal wrote:
> Maybe what I did is sufficient, may be not.
It is likely both, but much more insufficient than sufficient.
First, philosophically, it is insufficient. Chess is not solved up
until the tablebases. Therefore, the opening books, by definition, are
unsolved, and because they are unsolved, they are on surface, insufficient.
Secondly, openings tend to be more unsound that sound, yet you have
entirely missed the unsound openings. Leaving unsound in the same sea
as uncharted. There are more likely jewels to be found in the uncharted
than in the the charted yet unsound.
But, that said, it probably provides enough information for charting the
sound and usual. Probably a wide enough swath for useful work.
So both.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 12:00:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
Johnny T <[email protected] > wrote:
> pascal wrote:
>> Maybe what I did is sufficient, may be not.
>
> It is likely both, but much more insufficient than sufficient.
>
> First, philosophically, it is insufficient. Chess is not solved up
> until the tablebases. Therefore, the opening books, by definition,
> are unsolved, and because they are unsolved, they are on surface,
> insufficient.
Nonsense. The goal of an opening book is not to give perfect moves
but to document best current practice. You may as well argue that
they're `insufficient' because they can't fly to the moon.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Gigantic Crystal Painting (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a Renaissance masterpiece but
it's completely transparent and huge!
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 13:45:13
From: Johnny T
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nonsense.
I know, I know. It is hard to learn anything new, or you're the
self-appointed king of the newsgroup. Anything that doesn't fit your
personal world view is nonsense.
First, I *said*, that depending on you measure it, it may be sufficient,
or insufficient. Funny, if I used your measurement, I said that it was
sufficient. Funny, we agreed. It is nonsense, yet we agreed.
Or, you think all the other cases I mentioned, where some find value in
the opening book, believing that not all new opening theory is found,
discovered and practiced at the grandmaster or supergrandmaster lever.
That think that there is a lot of interesting stuff, especially in
non-mainstream lines at other levels.
That there are a number of opening trees that I don't want to
investigate everything that is fruitless as I am studying or attempting
to understand a game or something. Wouldn't be cool if my opening book
already had those lines ked of as fruitless.
Gee wouldn't my opening book be insufficient if I wanted to do those
things.
Oh those things are like going to the moon. You know, they have nothing
to do with chess, or using databases for research, or using opening
books in my research. Nope, nothing to do with that.
Let the wool drop from your eyes. Be open to learning something. Stop
superreacting when someone posts. But I talk to the wall.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 12:26:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
Johnny T <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Nonsense.
>
> First, I *said*, that depending on you measure it, it may be
> sufficient, or insufficient.
You said,
``First, philosophically, it is insufficient. Chess is not solved up
until the tablebases. Therefore, the opening books, by definition,
are unsolved, and because they are unsolved, they are on surface,
insufficient.''
I explained why this is nonsense. If you have a problem with that,
please address it before accusing me of being closed to new ideas.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mouldy Radioactive Wine (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a vintage Beaujolais but it'll
make you glow in the dark and it's
starting to grow mushrooms!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 08:53:48
From: Johnny T
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
David Richerby wrote:
> I explained why this is nonsense. If you have a problem with that,
> please address it before accusing me of being closed to new ideas.
You stated that it was non-sequitor (like going to the moon), and
non-sense, and that the only reason was...
The point was opening books and "sufficiency". The original point was
that no opening book, could, on it's surface, be "sufficient". For at
least the reason, it could not be complete, because the game wasn't
solved. This is true, has nothing to do with going to the moon.
Then... If you read further... It was pointed out, that openings are
not just about what is that grandmasters play, but importantly for
research purposes lines that are not good. Surely for research and
learning purposes a "sufficient" opening book helps to minimize the
research of the human. And that there is more bad than good, and that
which has been identified as bad should be included, and it can't be
found in the grandmaster's game.
Then... If you read further... That EVEN WITH THOSE OBJECTIONS, that
for certain purposes, the way it had done may well be "sufficient".
And that's it.
I wasn't mocking you, or him. But you have chosen to mock me with
"nonsense" and "going to the moon" references. I reject those
references. If you still believe it is nonsense. Um, I don't know what
to say. You are not open to anything other than your view.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 19:23:15
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
Johnny T <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> I explained why this is nonsense. If you have a problem with that,
>> please address it before accusing me of being closed to new ideas.
>
> You stated that it was non-sequitor (like going to the moon), and
> non-sense, and that the only reason was...
... that is it a non-sequitur and nonsense. Sorry.
> The point was opening books and "sufficiency". The original point
> was that no opening book, could, on it's surface, be "sufficient".
> For at least the reason, it could not be complete, because the game
> wasn't solved. This is true, has nothing to do with going to the
> moon.
The argument does not follow. Sufficiency of a system is measured
against its design goals and the design goals of the opening book do
not include solving chess. The fact that chess has not yet been
solved is utterly irrelevant to how well an opening book performs its
job.
Hence my comment about flying to the moon: flying to the moon is also
not one of the design goals of an opening book so we do not criticise
it for being unable to do that.
> Then... If you read further...
Yes, I did read further. I broadly agreed with your points later your
original post and did not address them as I had no further comment to
make on them. It was your claim that opening books are not
`sufficient' because chess has not been solved that I was decribing as
nonsense.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Aluminium Vomit (TM): it's like a pile
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of puke that's really light!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 15:45:48
From: Johnny T
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
David Richerby wrote:
> ... that is it a non-sequitur and nonsense. Sorry.
>
>
>> The point was opening books and "sufficiency". The original point
>> was that no opening book, could, on it's surface, be "sufficient".
>> For at least the reason, it could not be complete, because the game
>> wasn't solved. This is true, has nothing to do with going to the
>> moon.
>
> The argument does not follow. Sufficiency of a system is measured
> against its design goals and the design goals of the opening book do
> not include solving chess. The fact that chess has not yet been
> solved is utterly irrelevant to how well an opening book performs its
> job.
Untrue... If chess were solved. And *THE* pathways were known, then it
*must* be included in any "sufficient" opening book. But, and we agree
here, chess is not solved, will not be solved, and therefor *cannot*
contain these paths. You must dismiss this case, to determine whether
or not the book is "sufficient". And we agree that is so. But you feel
that this basic premise is nonsense. Nope, sorry partner, you're
simply wrong. Even if you are beyond this point in your personal
definition of opening book. Fundamentally, it is not nonsense to bring
it up, and deal with it.
I agree with you, that this idealized world is impossible in our
physical universe. But the fact that extremely often people come here
and talk about solving chess, and that chess is nearly solved, etc...
You must be able to dismiss the fact that chess, isn't solved. Even if
you do not deal with it's solvability. And that the fact that it isn't
solved, means that the book *cannot* contain *the* optimum paths.
> Hence my comment about flying to the moon: flying to the moon is also
> not one of the design goals of an opening book so we do not criticise
> it for being unable to do that.
No, flying to the moon, is an off handed way to say "non-sequitor" which
is NOT the case, no matter how much you say it. It does follow to the
sufficiency question, even if you say different.
>> Then... If you read further...
>
> Yes, I did read further. I broadly agreed with your points later your
> original post and did not address them as I had no further comment to
> make on them.
Without a simple, I agree with the rest, you snipped and dismissed my
entire post.
> It was your claim that opening books are not
> `sufficient' because chess has not been solved that I was decribing as
> nonsense.
No, actually, it is not nonsense at all. There is a premise (It is not
sufficient, it does *not* provide *the* optimum paths to an opening), It
provides a reason (Because the game has not been solved), and even
suggests further along that this is not enough reason to believe the
that book is not good enough. This is, by definition, sensical. Saying
that it is going to the moon, is nonsensical.
And even worse, by broadly agreeing by snipping those parts you agree
with, and comment that the post was nonsense, you dismiss the entire post.
And try as you might, you have merely proven the point, you didn't agree
with part of what I said, even if it is valid, so you dismiss me and the
entire post as nonsense.
Sorry if I offended your fiefdom. I do not agree, and I patently
disagree with you.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 18:03:39
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
Johnny T <[email protected] > wrote:
> But, and we agree here, chess is not solved, will not be solved,
Actually, I don't agree that chess will not be solved: I think it's
unlikely but possible. That doesn't really matter for current
purposes but I'd be grateful if you'd refrain from putting words into
my mouth.
> You must be able to dismiss the fact that chess, isn't solved. Even
> if you do not deal with it's solvability. And that the fact that it
> isn't solved, means that the book *cannot* contain *the* optimum
> paths.
Well, actually, the opening book might contain the optimal paths; it's
just that nobody knows that they're optimal.
But it doesn't have to contain the optimal paths and this is the whole
point. The purpose of the opening book is to document best current
practice in the opening so that an engine can get into a reasonable
middlegame position without having to spend lots of time working out a
phase of the game that strong humans play mainly from memory. Best
current practice is determined by the best human play, often guided by
computer analysis. That's what goes in the opening book.
At some point in the future, we might have solved chess and, at that
point, best current practice will have evolved and opening books will
then have to include that. But to say that an opening book is in some
way deficient because it does not include information that nobody on
the planet knows is unreasonable.
>> Hence my comment about flying to the moon: flying to the moon is
>> also not one of the design goals of an opening book so we do not
>> criticise it for being unable to do that.
>
> No, flying to the moon, is an off handed way to say "non-sequitor"
> which is NOT the case, no matter how much you say it.
It's `non sequitur', by the way.
>>> Then... If you read further...
>>
>> Yes, I did read further. I broadly agreed with your points later
>> your original post and did not address them as I had no further
>> comment to make on them.
>
> Without a simple, I agree with the rest, you snipped and dismissed my
> entire post.
It would have been better if I'd explicitly said in my first follow-up
that I broadly agreed with the rest of your post.
However, there is a long-standing convention on Usenet that, when
following up, one quotes only the parts of the post that are relevant
to the follow-up. I quoted one particular part of your post (twice!)
and it was that that I was dismissing as nonsense. I did not dismiss
the rest of your post: I didn't even talk about it.
>> It was your claim that opening books are not `sufficient' because
>> chess has not been solved that I was decribing as nonsense.
>
> No, actually, it is not nonsense at all. There is a premise (It is
> not sufficient, it does *not* provide *the* optimum paths to an
> opening), It provides a reason (Because the game has not been
> solved), and even suggests further along that this is not enough
> reason to believe the that book is not good enough. This is, by
> definition, sensical.
It does not make sense because your argument doesn't seem to be based
on any reasonable definition of what an opening book is. I've
explained this several times now and you don't appear to have
addressed this point.
> Saying that it is going to the moon, is nonsensical.
I did not say that opening books had anything to do with going to the
moon. In fact, I said the exact opposite: ``flying to the moon is
also *not* one of the design goals of an opening book so we do not
criticise it for being unable to do that.'' (Emphasis added.)
> And even worse, by broadly agreeing by snipping those parts you
> agree with, and comment that the post was nonsense, you dismiss the
> entire post.
I did not comment that the post was nonsense: I commented that the
part I quoted was nonsense. I did not dismiss the entire post or part
of it. I gave a reasoned argument that came to the opposite
conclusion to yours.
> And try as you might, you have merely proven the point, you didn't
> agree with part of what I said, even if it is valid so you dismiss
> me and the entire post as nonsense.
I did not dismiss your entire post as nonsense. I did not dismiss
you.
> Sorry if I offended your fiefdom.
I do not have a fiefdom to offend.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Homicidal Clock (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ clock but it wants to kill you!
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 00:13:28
From: Hans
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
Superreacting? I have seen better examples of superreacting recently.
Maybe David is right chess and computer wise.
You seem to be a nice guy but couldn't it be possible that you are
talking to the wall you just built yourself ?
Let's hope 1. e2-e4?? won't be solved for a few decades so we can
still have some fun at the board.
In the mean time I'll be reading 40 year old obsolete opening books
trying to prevent another defeat against my 12 yo daughter.
Hans
On 2007-02-13 22:45:13 +0100, Johnny T <[email protected] > said:
> David Richerby wrote:
>
>> Nonsense.
>
> I know, I know. It is hard to learn anything new, or you're the
> self-appointed king of the newsgroup. Anything that doesn't fit your
> personal world view is nonsense.
>
> First, I *said*, that depending on you measure it, it may be
> sufficient, or insufficient. Funny, if I used your measurement, I said
> that it was sufficient. Funny, we agreed. It is nonsense, yet we
> agreed.
>
> Or, you think all the other cases I mentioned, where some find value in
> the opening book, believing that not all new opening theory is found,
> discovered and practiced at the grandmaster or supergrandmaster lever.
> That think that there is a lot of interesting stuff, especially in
> non-mainstream lines at other levels.
>
> That there are a number of opening trees that I don't want to
> investigate everything that is fruitless as I am studying or attempting
> to understand a game or something. Wouldn't be cool if my opening book
> already had those lines ked of as fruitless.
>
> Gee wouldn't my opening book be insufficient if I wanted to do those things.
>
> Oh those things are like going to the moon. You know, they have
> nothing to do with chess, or using databases for research, or using
> opening books in my research. Nope, nothing to do with that.
>
> Let the wool drop from your eyes. Be open to learning something. Stop
> superreacting when someone posts. But I talk to the wall.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 17:42:00
From: Johnny T
Subject: Re: Looking for an opening reference book for Scid
|
Hans wrote:
> Superreacting? I have seen better examples of superreacting recently.
People should be careful using terms like "nonsense." Because they
leave little room for discussion, dissent, and the discovery of truth.
> Maybe David is right chess and computer wise.
> You seem to be a nice guy but couldn't it be possible that you are
> talking to the wall you just built yourself ?
And who knows what your point is here, unless you are just piling on to
the nonsense debate, by saying, what? I don't know.
> Let's hope 1. e2-e4?? won't be solved for a few decades so we can still
> have some fun at the board.
I am sure that it will be likely 1. e4!? rather than a blunder.
> In the mean time I'll be reading 40 year old obsolete opening books
> trying to prevent another defeat against my 12 yo daughter.
Which either raises the question of sufficiency or answers it. But who
knows. You do know that the original question was about "sufficiency"
correct? And that the entirety of my answer tried to answer the "is it
sufficient" question. Yet somehow it was construed that I was so off
base, so off topic, that my answer had as much to do with opening books
in chess as going to the moon, or complete nonsense.
And now, having defended this, I am "super-reacting". Wow.
|
|
