Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 15:46:53 02/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2005 at 18:34:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 19, 2005 at 17:49:29, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>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...... > >No >I did not expect it to happen. > >I only responded to the follwoing sentence of Dan >"We know Arturo builds good books - you could test with >Diep or Zappa." > >I only explained why I could not test it. >I did not compain about the fact that I am unable to test it. >> >>>> >>>>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. > >Note that I never claimed that a good book cannot help an engine to win a >tournament. >If people understood it from me then I did a bad explaining job. >I will try to do better explaining job in this post. > ??????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!! Go to (*)(**) > > >I said that I consider book as unimportant and I said that an engine that is (*) unimportant = not meaning much, not having value or significance (1) Contradiction: "I did not claim that a book cannot help an engine...." .... "I consider the book as unimportant..." (**) read the meaning of unimportant(*). >strong enough has good chances to win even with 1.h3 but (2) I have also suggested that 1. f3!! and 2. g4!! would be a lot better. :)) The tops engine are already prepared for all those idiot moves including 1. h3? and 1. f3?? >I never said that the engines that play in world championship are strong enough >relative to their opponents > >The difference between the best and the second best is for years less than 100 >elo and when there is a small difference of course a book can be the decisive >factor about the question who is going to win. > >The point is that I believe in the following assumptions: > >1)It is possible to make an engine that is significantly stronger than >shredder9(improvement of more than 200 elo in nunn type match and I am not >talking only about nunn position but also about other equal positions out of >book). (3) This is not relevant to your contradiction in (1). Nunn Matches dont say anything about the significance of the book component. > >I believe that it is only a question of time and I expect it to happen in less >than 10 years from today. (4) This is a prediction not related to the topic. > >2)A programmer who is good enough to develop an engine that is significantly >stronger than the opponents has good chances to win WCCC even without working >about book (when the opponents of course have not his new engine that made a big >improvement of more than 200 elo). > (5) Shredder, Junior and Fritz han showed this is not true over the latest years in Official Tournaments. All of them use strong book tuned by hand. I have not seen the first case from a no-book engine winning an official Tournament. Where are the facts? AO
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.