Author: Tony Werten
Date: 02:38:26 02/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2005 at 16:15:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Doesn't "no book" also imply "no book learning" ? From Vincents quote, he seems to mean it that way. Maybe positional learning will prevent you from loosing the same game time after time, but not from loosing the same 5 games time after time. Tony > >> >>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.