Johnny T 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!