Johnny T 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!