Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:15:14 02/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2005 at 14:50:57, John Merlino wrote: >On February 17, 2005 at 14:23:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 17, 2005 at 14:15:57, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On February 17, 2005 at 14:03:30, Tord Romstad wrote: >>> >>>Well 700 Elo is equivalent to about 5-6 pawns material advantage, >>>I don't think I have ever seen that in an actual game much less >>>seen it on average. >>> >>>I can believe in a good book giving half a pawn or ~50 Elo, >>>not much more than that is realistic IMO. >>> >>>Perhaps the person you refer to is talking about a book >>>with "perfect chess" reaching 80 plies deep? :) >>> >>>-S. >> >>No, the person he is talking about simply lives in an alternate universe where >>our normal rules of physics and math do not apply... >> >>I don't see why anyone would even bother participating in that particular >>discussion, much less running tests. I claim that water freezes at 12.7C, >>who is going to run a detailed test to see if that is right or not? Or is >>common sense enough? :) > >I can't believe I'm going to do this. But, to defend Vincent and Arturo to some >degree, I'm PRETTY SURE they were referring to a book that was specifically >designed to be played against a single opponent. Somebody please correct me if >I'm wrong. Even so, 750 points? Against a program using a random unknown book with learning? I personally don't buy it. Vincent's quote "you lose the first game and the next 1980 games after that." I can only say my program would not lose the next 1980 games by playing the same again and again, with or without the opening book. > >So, the only accurate way to test this (regardless of your argument that it >doesn't need to be tested at all due to "common sense" -- which may be a fine >argument but I'm not too sure it holds up scientifically :-) would be to create >a book that is designed to exploit the weaknesses in Hiarcs' book, and then test >with that. Then compare the results to using NO book, which, I believe, Vincent >was arguing reflected the other end of the 700-point range. > >Will it show the possibility of a 700-point ELO gain? I very highly doubt it. >But I do think it will result in a much bigger difference than the 3 points out >of 100 that came from the first test. > >jm Here is the fly in the ointment. I'll be happy to run the current version of Crafty, using the current book, for 3 months. Vincent or anyone can book up against it until their hearts are content. Then I will enter a match with them, either using a book or not using one. But I won't necessarily use that exact version of Crafty for the match since I _always_ enter something more recent than what has been publicly distributed. What is the probability I will get killed by a program that normally plays equal with me if we both use random or no books, but I lose 99 of every 100 games (750 rating points is somewhere around that win rate) when they use their super book and I use either no book or a random book? I'll bet the two programs will play within reasonable bounds about the same as they did earlier. No way to get a 99:1 win rate by just a book, particularly when you are claiming you can extend that streak for 2000 games. It just won't happen... A pre-planned opening against a specific opponent can win a single game, no question about it. I have done this in the past, multiple times. But not repeatedly against a book with randomness and learning, or against a version of the program that might well play different from the first move out of book.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.