Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 13:33:48 02/19/05
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. > I dont have reasons to make public my books. Neither Vincent Diepeveen nor Anthony Cozzie would be happy about that :) Besides, why to make public a book that is useless, boring and not required for the majority of the public (specially persons as you? Ask Vincent Diepeveen or Anthony Cozzie if they are really willing to give such a combination of software: their own engines plus my tournaments books. > >> 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. > My name is Arturo not Arturu. My books are tuned foor specific engines. >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
This page took 0.01 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.