Robert Pope wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:41 pm
jp wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:30 pm
matthewlai wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:52 am
If AZ can always play into closed openings from start position
no matter what the opponent does, why should its performance on open openings be reflected in its Elo rating?
jp wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:54 am
What makes you believe that?
Laskos wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:31 pm
Michel wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:20 pm
It is a question of philosophy. As 100% of the practical use of chess engines consists of analysis one can argue that a chess engine should be able to play good chess in any (reasonable) position...
That statement of Matthew is not true. A0 cannot play always as it likes the openings.
Yes, I agree with Kai. Chess is not like that. No one or thing can "always play into closed openings no matter what the opponent does". That claim is not true.
And again, it wasn't a "claim".
"If I could always pick the best move, I would be the best chess player in the world." Clearly a true statement, but I'm not claiming to be the best chess player in the world in that statement.
My English is bad, the context was:
The TCEC openings are all open and tactical openings, favouring SF. Why do you say they are more reliable?
If AZ can always play into closed openings from start position no matter what the opponent does, why should its performance on open openings be reflected in its Elo rating?
It seems to me at least a justification to use favorable to A0 openings, because it's quite possible that A0 steers the openings into favorable ones. Am I missing something? I used a book for SF10, showing that it's far from the truth that A0 can steer every opening the way it likes. So, there is no justification to use favorable to A0 openings. And there is no "supreme" argument to not disturb A0 from playing by its own from Initial Board position, as "it knows better what to do". I let Lc0 play as it wants from the start, and against SF10 + book it performed very poorly compared to the picked openings from the paper. Also, I did have diversity with the book, which they did not have in all their matches aside the TCEC match. I really cannot understand how one can take very seriously a match of 1000 games from 1 position.
Yes, it was maybe not a complete claim, but it was used as an argument to justify the chosen methodology.
Anyway, all this is maybe not that important, A0 is here, Lc0 is here, they are great, the paper is great, so I don't want to be too confrontational.