Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.analysis (
More info?)
Leahy:
> > >I think this is one of the best uses of Bookup. As often as not,
when
> >the
> >contents of a popular opening book are backsolved, the starting
> >position of
> >chess (move 1) is often tagged as winning for White or winning for
> >Black.
Houlsby:
> > So how many lines have been worked out, by BookUp, from move one to
a
> draw or a loss for White or Black?
Leahy:
> As many lines as you put in.
Houlsby:
That being true, how many black defences have been refuted? Has BookUp
refuted, for example, the Grünfeld or the Sicilian? Any others?
Leahy
>Your general idea seems to be that a patzer should not prepare his
openings
and should not document his openings in Bookup and the assessments of a
patzer are not worth backsolving in Bookup.
Houlsby:
No, that's completely wrong. I've stated *only* that *patzers should
not study openings at all*. Rather than wasting our time studying
opening lines, we should study only the *tactical traps* which pertain
to the openings we play. That way, we're more likely both to emerge
from the opening unscathed, and to be ready to play a middlegame which
is to our liking. It *is* a good idea for us to study endgames, because
endgame theory is pretty static.
Leahy:
> You've said earlier that a
patzer should not play analysis from a grandmaster that he does not
understand.
Houlsby:
Correct. I tried it several times. I lost several times.
Leahy:
> You obviously know more about this than I do. What exactly
should a patzer do?
Once again: a patzer should study tactics and endgames. Ask any top
trainer, for example, Dvoretsky.
I've already told you this several times. Will you pay attention this
time, or just keep trolling?
Leahy:
>> >Backsolving makes the critical line in any analysis stand out like
a
> sore
> thumb. Then the unplayed moves that Al Tomalty (Komputer Korner)
> mentioned
> will scream to be added.
Houlsby:
> How many are to be added?
> <snip>
> Leahy wrote:
> >>>You've made a good case for the usefulness of Backsolving.
> Houlsby wrote:
> >>No, he hasn't, and I suspect that he may agree that he has not.
> Leahy:
> >I wasn't expecting his agreement. I tend to stick to topics on
chess
> software and not to topics on who likes/needs/understands chess
> software.
> Houlsby:
> Right, so your *understanding* of BookUp is crucial to your being
able
> to answer questions like KK's... agreed?
> Equally, your *understanding* of his (or my, or anyone's) misgivings
is
> crucial, too... agreed?
> Leahy:
> >Al is correct that adding a new move means "the preceding
backsolving
> process is now uselesss and has
> to be done again based on the new novelty."
> Houlsby:
> So, are you suggesting that BookUp has Backsolved *no* lines from a
> draw/forced loss back to move 1?
Leahy:
How do you get this suggestion from what Al and I wrote?
Houlsby:
If I backsolve a particular line, and play it, I lose because of a
novelty. DUH!
Once again: which black defences has BookUp refuted? Are you dumb?
> Leahy:
> > Fortunately you can and should
> do it again, and it can be done in real time just by moving backward
> through
> the tree from the novelty.
> Houlsby:
> Why should I, given the evident uselessness of the process, as you
have
> just explained?
Leahy:
How did you arrive at evident uselessness?
Houlsby:
Once again: if I play a backsolved line, I will lose because of a
novelty which hasn't been backsolved. Are you dumb?
Leahy:
That is akin to saying that
inserting a new number into a spreadsheet makes the spreadsheet
worthless.
Houlsby:
No, it's *nothing* like that. What a stupid analogy! All a spreadsheet
does is run the numbers. A spreadsheet does in seconds what it used to
take accountants a week to do.
Leahy:
Let the spreadsheet calculate the new cells already! That's what it is
designed to do.
Houlsby:
Right, it's designed to run the numbers. We're talking about whether or
not backsolving has refuted any black defences, which is *entirely
different*, qualitatively speaking. How many black defences has BookUp
refuted? The Caro-Kann, for example? The Dutch? Which ones?
Leahy:
And if GM Svidler was wicked fast and perfect at adding numbers I'll
bet he
could still use a spreadsheet to document his finances. Similarly if
he was
the best analyst on earth he could benefit from Bookup's Backsolving.
Houlsby:
Sure he could, on account of his being a super-GM who *understands* the
opening well enough to be able *to tell the difference* between the
Shinola that backsolving generates and the rest of its output. We've
already been over this.
Leahy:
Those that cannot add two numbers reliably would probably be bewildered
by a
spreadsheet. I imagine patzers are bewildered by backsolving. It is
the
human version of mini-maxing, the process used by all chess playing
programs
to "think." Ridiculing the process is not going to enhance one's
understanding of it.
Houlsby:
Once again: what I am ridiculing is not *the process itself*. I have
*already acknowledged*, several times, that the *process* of
backsolving is *fine* as far as it goes.
Unfortunately, it takes someone with the acuity of a Svidler, or at
least a master of some kind, to tell the difference between the Shinola
and the rest of backsolving's output. Why can't you understand this?
> Houlsby:
> So you're suggesting that BookUp is *as effective* at identifying and
> evaluating critical lines as *Svidler or any lesser GM* is? Even if
it
> is, what use is that to me, if I can't understand *why* a tabiya is
> evaluated as +/= or whatever?
Leahy:
You've hit on an important point. If you truly do not understand why
any
position (including a tabiya) is evaluated in any particular way then
it is
impossible to explain the importance of Backsolving.
Houlsby:
So you admit that backsolving is *completely useless* to anyone who is
not a master. You see, everyone who is not a master *definitely does
not understand* opening tabiyas, at all, which is why whenever a patzer
plays an opening which he/she understands less well than the other guy,
said patzer will *always* LOSE convincingly, for *tactical* reasons.
Leahy:
Backsolving can only be understood when you get that the "+/= or
whatever"
is based on the best line of play in a tree of analysis, and with huge
trees
of analysis Backsolving takes the guesswork out of calculating the
effect of
an improved line.
Houlsby:
Right, so you finally agree (after several weeks of your arguing the
contrary) that backsolving is useless to anyone who is not a master.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Houlsby:
> >>Backsolving is nothing more, and nothing less, than computer
> analysis,
> >>which is fine as far as it goes, but that may be only a couple of
> >>yards....
> Leahy:
> >Backsolving is much more often based on human analysis and can be
> contrasted
> with computer analysis.
> Houlsby:
> So how do I, a patzer:
> a) understand
> and
> b) reconcile any conflicting evaluations?
Leahy:
You tell me how a patzer does this.
Houlsby:
That's the *whole point*. No patzer *can* do it...AT ALL.
Leahy:
Computer analysis?
Houlsby:
Nope.
Leahy:
Reading a GM's notes?
Houlsby:
Nope.
Leahy:
Your original thought?
Houlsby:
Heaven forfend! That *always* loses *really* quickly... ;-)
Leahy:
What do you do?
Houlsby:
I play *systems* with respect to which I hope to understand the
*tactics* better than my opponent does. If I actually manage to get out
of the opening, I get a pretty good game, and it's down to *who
blunders last*.
Leahy:
What would you suggest for patzers?
Houlsby:
Above all: study tactics and endgames. *Never* study openings. Play
*systems* with respect to which you may hope to understand the
*tactics* better than your opponent does. If, and only if, you get
*good enough* at tactics and endgames to reach *master level*, you will
have become a good enough player to be able to discern the *types* of
opening which lead to the *types* of middlegame which suit your
*style*. Until then, studying openings is a waste of time, and as a
direct consequence, BookUp is a waste of time.
Mark Houlsby