Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 13:46:15 02/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2005 at 16:19:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 18, 2005 at 13:55:25, Dan Honeycutt wrote: > >>On February 17, 2005 at 17:48:18, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 17, 2005 at 14:42:41, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >>> >>>>On February 17, 2005 at 14:03:30, Tord Romstad wrote: >>>> >>>>>A couple of days ago, a well-known programmer and regular >>>>>poster here on the CCC claimed that a good opening book >>>>>was worth at least 700 Elo points. I thought this number >>>>>looked completely outrageous, and decided to do a simple >>>>>experiment. >>>>> >>>>>I am the author of a basic and minimalistic UCI chess engine >>>>>called Glaurung. Source code and executables for Mac OS X, >>>>>Linux and Windows can be found at the following URL: >>>>> >>>>>http://www.math.uio.no/~romstad/glaurung/glaurung.html >>>>> >>>>>Recently, I have played some test matches with Glaurung >>>>>against the strongest engine I have on my compter: Hiarcs >>>>>9.6. Not surprisingly, all such matches end in crushing >>>>>victories for Hiarcs. The last match I played ended >>>>>75-25 in Hiarcs' favor. >>>>> >>>>>As a crude test of the "good book=700 Elo" claim, I have >>>>>now repeated the match with identical program versions >>>>>and conditions, except that Hiarcs was now playing without >>>>>an opening book. Assuming that Hiarcs' book is worth 700 >>>>>Elo, the expected result of this second match would be >>>>>something like 95-5 in _Glaurung's_ favor. >>>>> >>>>>The actual result of the second match was very close to >>>>>the first match: Hiarcs won by 72-28. >>>>> >>>>>As far as I can see, this means that at least one of the >>>>>following must be true: >>>>> >>>>>a) The statement "good book=700 Elo" is lightyears away >>>>>from the truth. >>>>> >>>>>b) Hiarcs has an extremely bad opening book, and with a >>>>>half decent opening book it would be several hundred >>>>>rating points ahead of Shredder. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Tord >>>> >>>>Hi Tord: >>>> >>>>I too think 700 is a number from the twilight zone. But the statement, IIRC, >>>>was 700 points for a very good book vs no book. So you have to include the >>>>possibility: >>>> >>>>c) Glaurung's book is no good. >>> >>>Glaurung's book is not the subject here. >>> >>>Tord simply comapred hiarcs book with no book. >>> >>>He let Glaurung with it's own book to play agaisnt Hiarcs with it's book and let >>>Glaurung with it's own book play against Hiarcs with no book. >>> >>>Hiarcs with it's own book failed to perform even 100 elo better. >>> >>>Uri. >> >>All right then add the possibility: >> >>d) Hiarcs' book is no good. > >Tord already considered that possibility > >one of the possibilities that tord considered: > >"b) Hiarcs has an extremely bad opening book, and with a >half decent opening book it would be several hundred >rating points ahead of Shredder." > > >> >>However you take it, to prove or disprove the statement you are going to have to >>test with a "good book". We know Arturo builds good books - you could test with >>Diep or Zappa. > >Arturo did not make his books public so I cannot test them. > > >> We know Sandro builds good books - you could test with Shredder. > >I do not know that the book that you can give to shredder is defined as a good >book by Arturu. > >It is also not the subject because I responded to your response to responded to >Tord. > >Tord already gave the possible options so I saw no need to repeat them. > >Uri You are correct - Tord gave the possibility of a bad Hiarcs book. It was Vincent, not Arturo, who made the original statement so Vincent would have to define what he means by a good book. To me it seemed clear that by "good book" he was talking about a book tuned to a specific engine - a book like Arturo or Sandro would build. Dan H.
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.