Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:41:04 02/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2005 at 07:30:41, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On February 20, 2005 at 06:34:30, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On February 20, 2005 at 05:21:35, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2005 at 04:40:19, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On February 19, 2005 at 07:43:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 17, 2005 at 14:03:30, Tord Romstad wrote: >>>> >>>>Hi Vincent, >>>> >>>>I hope everything is well with you. I guess you'll meet Stefan at Paderborn. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Don't do idiot experiments that just support the idiocy you invented yourself. >>>>> >>>>>IF you have an engine rated 3000 in strength THEN it will play virtually achieve >>>>>2300 in the important games instead of 3000 when NOT using a book. So the book >>>>>delivers 700 rating points. >>>> >>>>This is a very interesting statement. >>>>I agree with you and I know that the stronger an engine is the best it will get >>>>from a good opening book, but I never estimated how much it would get reaching >>>>3000 in strenght. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Experiments with some idiot engine that is itself rated what is it, 2200, >>>>>will be useless of course. >>>>> >>>>>Some years ago when engines were 2200 level it was the Mchess-Necchi team who >>>>>said a book was worth 300, and he meant that obviously in the same way as i mean >>>>>the 700 points at real high level. >>>> >>>>Yes, you are correct. >>> >>>So let me get this straight - if two equal engines play, and one of them has a >>>book that decides one half of all games in its favor without any chance for the >>>victim to continue, this books needs to be improved, since the rating boost here >>>is only 200 rating points. >> >>A good book, to me should do the following: >> >>1. Give positions with a plus for the program. >>2. Give positions which can show the best of the program strenght by allowing it >>to play the strongest. >>3. Play positions that bring to endgames the program know to play well. >> >>Now if 2 engines about strong the same reach a position which is better for >>program a (suitable more for program a) program a will get an advantage soon or >>later even if not higher in score from the opening and program b will not be >>able to recover. >> >>The result is that in that game program a and b will not show to be about strong >>the same. Do you understand what I mean? > >Sandro, > >yes, I understand what you say. Certainly, you can benefit from having a book >which co-operates with your engine. I can believe that when you have an engine >at the level of Shredder, every improvement helps. > >The question we're dealing with here is - how much does it help? > >Personally, I doubt that you can regularly patch up problems in the evaluation >via book. Or that you can regularly exploit positional problems in your >opponents via book. Or that you can just get forced wins in the opening on a >regular basis. > >Of course, this is just a personal opinion. > >The question which Tord and Uri and Martin and Sune and now also me are asking >is: what experiments support the claim that the book has a significant (ie. >=75 >Elo) effect on the engine level? > >The answer that you must try playing in a WCCC with a top engine but without a >book is not very satisfying :) > >Thanks, >Vas I can continue and ask what rating shredder9(with no book but positional learning) can get in the ssdf list. Uri
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.