Haha! Do you mean the private book I was given to use for 12 +2 blitz games? While the openings on that book are excellent for quick games and to bridge the gap between my slow hardware and the top things people use today, its openings don't hold up at correspondence chess control. It's not a book that can be used against someone intelligent (unassisted engines are very stupid), and, anyway, the core of the book is from June 5 2019, as I was using it it became pretty clear that chess theory was advancing really fast, and to avoid getting the book obsoleted I had to play games daily and fix the book as lines were getting exposed and refuted.
At some point I took a 1 week break, and after I came back I don't even know if using the book was to my disadvantage, as some people were playing directly into its holes, and I was losing games playing its green moves directly, and it took me an entire week to fix it and go back to where I was before (no improvement.)
But corr chess games happen at a pace so slow that the book is just unsuitable for them. I tried it in 2 games and was in trouble, and fixing it was taking longer than not using it at all. So I haven't used the book for months and it didn't have any effect on our games whatsoever (mainly, because the book only covers the variations it plays. In our first game, it covers 4...Bb4+ and that's it. I played 4...Be7 so the book didn't have anything in it. In this game it covered 2.c4, so the book didn't have anything for 2.Bf4).
So, no, playing those opening in correspondence games would be suicide, and I haven't touched the book since July 20, so who knows if I went back to playing unassisted engine chess, if some random modern public book would perform better than it already, because book maintenance is hard work.
I suspect that book wasn't very good then. At least not for something other than what it was made for. The stats on the few corr games I've played, were obtained using public books. They're perfectly usable.
The main point of the book was to "outbook" the opponent to great lengths, on 12 min +2 games I would most of the time have more than twice the time than my opponents when I started thinking, and very often landed on positions that were near to the endgame, where there was no way they'd beat me even if I used a toaster engine, and thus I could draw games against Leelas on the fastest GPUs...
Corr chess is a different beast where there's no such thing as having twice the time as your opponent when out of book, because no matter what they'll have months to play the rest of the game. Where you don't want to allow them to reach an endgame position that is trivially drawn against you (specially if they have some 1800 FICGS level that would be easy to defeat with a novelty.) And where intelligent opponents can find a hole in the book and refute the line as it is being played, so it's best to play something you can't refute yourself (like the openings I played against you in our games. I still don't know how to measure their quality, but I get the vibe that I could never beat you.)
If that's your impression, and I think the same about anyone at the top. And I haven't lost a single correspondence game, nor did I lose any in the last Freestyle tour. If you know why you lost the only two games you've lost in five years... what makes you think there's still room for legitimate wins against top opponents?
Just because I don't know how to do something, and don't see a way to do it, doesn't mean there's no way to do it. It's not like you've found the ultimate recipe to produce perfect games on the fly. I also estimate that some *me* from year 2024 could be able to defeat the *you* of today, it's just that my 2014 self didn't have any idea of what I'm doing in 2019 (the poor guy would add 7 unnecessary engines to analysis...) so who knows what I'll be doing by then (unless I quit corr chess so I'm close to my peak in strength.)
I remember believing that someone like Highendman had the power with all his resources to produce perfect chess moves, and any deviation from them would turn out to be crunched by him. It turns out his power wasn't impressive at all, and if he was as strong as I believed he was (and he was probably much weaker) I believe I surpassed him at around the time Stockfish 8 was released, and I don't see any stopping sign, so I think I'll surpass *you* in the following years (and by *you* I mean the person right now reading this, not who you'll be at that point, because if you keep improving and getting tougher to beat I might never surpass you.)
Also, I don't think I've lost two or more games the same way again, I learn from my mistakes, so it means the next game I lose will be in a new and surprising way. witchesbutt at Rybka forum has been playing games with me, and he believes his bookmaker could easily wipe the floor with me. If that's true, it'd mean he plays better than you, so who knows if he could also beat you and other top players. We'll never know unless games happen.
If you knew how to beat them, you'd be doing it already. The question wasn't "how" but rather what indicators made you think that way.
The time travel argument, about future developments giving a sufficient edge over present or past computer resources can't be directly countered, but if you're really curious, you could play some self games, having white and current resources on one side, and 5 year old SF + HW tools (for example) on the other.
Playing from opening positions already stablished 5 years ago, I'm sure you'd find that the latest advances, don't correlate with results at long time controls, specially correspondence chess like.
I don't need to play against myself to see that, all my analysis is still there, and I have talked about it on Rybka Forum, calling it "analysis obsolescence". So my analysis from 2016 is crap, and my analysis from 2017 is becoming crap by the minute. I guess my analysis from 2018 is still decent, but it seems some major release from Stockfish could easily make it crumble. If trends continue, the analysis I'm doing today will be crap by 2021, and I have seen acceleration on this, specially with Leela around, that even at Depth 8 is capable of busting some lines.
But this isn't about me, the ICCF allows me to download all their games from the last month, and what I've seen is that everyone is in the same boat, top players of 2016 played like crap, and I don't see any difference between GMs or 2100 rated players (pick two at random, chances are the 2100 guy might have played better than the ICCF GM for no reason.) Heck, we were talking at Talkchess recently about how players of TODAY play like crap in the ICCF, which makes my IM title meaningless.
So I'm sure the time travel argument does hold, and I'm a Top player (by your definition) of 2016 or thereabouts, because it's easy to see when today's engine play stronger moves at 12 +2 than those guys at corr chess time control. And I haven't even upgraded my hardware since 2010.
Opening positions established 5 years ago are crap, or even, from 6 months ago are crap. All you need to do to check it is downloading some top free book from January 2019, and one from August 2019, and have them play, and see the slaughter. Unless the new one is a drawbook, happy to go very deep into lines it can't lose, but that it can't win either, but those books just give a wrong impression about what is happening. The results of fast time controls do correlate to long time controls when people are playing as badly as they are on corr games. When they aren't, well, I already said I was stumped trying to beat some FICGS guys, it was you who said you'd beat them the same.
I already said I was stumped trying to beat some FICGS guys, it was you who said you'd beat them the same.
Again, "the same" doesn't equate "always". Check my stats, there's no difference among servers. I also said that you wouldn't glean anything from our games, regardless the result, but it sounds like you intend on making a case.
That's incredible. I guess I'll post on here the next time I lose a game, which by my estimation would happen in about 9 months. If I don't lose a game in the next year and a half, I guess I'll concede, expecting to face people already as strong as I'll be 5 years from now, if they can't touch me, improving has lost any meaning, and I've been producing "perfect moves" for a while. We'll see...
Anyway, thanks for the games, I learned a lot, specially about my nonsense about "being able to complicate things at will", which you trivially proved wrong. Though, if I'm at the end of the line, I guess it will not matter XD