Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 14:49:29 02/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2005 at 17:08:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 19, 2005 at 16:33:48, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>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. > >No problem with it. >I only responded to "you could test with Diep or Zappa." > I run my own private tests and I know what the advantages of a tuned book are. Of course, I would be crazy or I would be very idiot to give such a book to bad testers and/or unrelieable people. And the authors that I help would not be happy with such idiot actions. > > > 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? > >I did not ask to make it public. > When you said that I had not made public any of my Tournament Books, you were expecting that something like that might happen. Of course, it wont happen for the know reasons...... >> >>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. > >sorry for the mistake in your name. > >Again I only responded to the poster and the subject was not your book but the >question if sandro's book are good book. Well, I would doubt that Mr. Sandro´s books are bad. I would not defend this but this question is quite..... You will know how the combination of a strong engine like Shredder plus a tuned book for it is very successful. However, you cotinue missing and ignoring the point. The time has showed who is wrong..... > >The point is that using them in the discussion about the value of book is >irrelevant if the public book of shredder is not considered by you as a good >book. I am not talking about a specific case: You generalized about how useless are a book is. Therefore, I have showed why this position is absurd and wrong.
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.