Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 06:39:17 02/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2005 at 08:22:53, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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? > >It depends on the program strenght, in how good is the book for that specific >program and where we are using it. > >According to Vincent if a program is 3000 points strong the very good book helps >700 points. > >When programs where 2200 points strong a very good book (for that program) >helped 300 points. > >We are talking about WCCC tournament, so with selection guided by the operator >and a few games. > > >> >>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. > >I did not say that. >We are studying our opponents like true chess players and make estimation of >what we can do better, worst and so on... >The book is optimized on these things based on our program knowledge and not on >others weaknesses... > >> >>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? > >A book made from games database on statistics has very little influence as good >things are compensated negatively by bad things...and there is no relation >between the player to whom the book is given and the moves selection. >It is like to force you to play what Kasparov does without you being able to >play like Kasparov...(maybe you play better...I do not know...) > Sandro - I pretty much agree with everything you say - at least, everything but the rating estimates. Of course that's pretty much the summary of this entire huge thread :) Anyway, if your rating estimates are anywhere near correct, then chess sucks and we should all switch to Fischer random :) Long live the middlegame! Vas >> >>The answer that you must try playing in a WCCC with a top engine but without a >>book is not very satisfying :) > >Without a book is a disaster...without a good book...time wasted if you play to >win of course... >> >>Thanks, >>Vas > >Sandro >> >>> >>>> >>>>Some years ago I played something like 300-400 games is tournaments. From all >>>>these games, maybe 3 or 4 were decided in the opening - at least as far as I >>>>could tell. So I'm wondering what exactly I missed there ... >>> >>>In WCCC tournaments it is different as the operator is choosing the variations >>>and these are very selected. The selection is made also on the weakness of the >>>opponent and not only in our strenght. >>> >>>This is the difference of a hand made book compared to a book made from games >>>database. This would take about 1 hour or so, while I have been working on my >>>book since 27 years now and making improvements every day... >>> >>>> >>>>Vas >>> >>>Sandro >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The weakest link is what counts. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't care for your engine in that respect, let alone such stupid experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>>Take a strong engine from which you feel it is the best engine in the world. >>>>>>Show up without book in important events. World champ will be the best test. >>>>>> >>>>>>THEN calculate after a 100 years of doing that, what the odds were you won that >>>>>>event. You will see it's 0%. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, here we agree too. >>>>> >>>>>Sandro >>>>>> >>>>>>750 rating points is roughly meaning that a person A has 0% chance against >>>>>>person B. >>>>>> >>>>>>What i'm saying is that not using a book versus an excellent book is making that >>>>>>difference true. 700 rating points. Not a point less. >>>>>> >>>>>>Vincent >>>>>> >>>>>>>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
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.