ConRog wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:07 am
I don't think the era of engines, plying with well tuned opening books, is dying.
I'm not surprised if most book's authors still believe it too

no one want to believe that his daily work is a dying activity, especially those who have been doing this for decades. But hey, it's not as if it wasn't obvious and as if we hadn't warned them.
ConRog wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:07 am
The goal of opening books is to go fast, and without loosing any microsecond, on maximum depth and on the best position, so that the engine will keep all remaining time to play maximum strength VS opponent which will have little time left because of losing precious seconds before the end of book line.
This is exactly what the other book's authors have explained to me

which is why, now, they want to collaborate with engine's trainers.
With neural networks, the engines guess the same moves as the book's moves (100% ponder) so when the book is out-of-book

the time saved by its engine is already useless

this technique leads to 99% draws

=> it's a technique dying.
ConRog wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:07 am
Good books will always beat a learning engine at all time controls.
Even under stupid conditions or sabotaged results, SCCT showed the opposite and several times
By reinforcing experience data, we already showed how a learning engine can resist to odd tc (=opponent with 4x, 5x and even 6x longer TC).
When a learning engine wins more games than an engine with an opening book, it is absurd to believe that the opening book was not good or that the TC was not favorable.
As Ibaibur explained, those who still believe this have a complete misunderstanding of the performance of experience data. Nothing surprising because this lack of knowledge is carefully maintained by daily testers.