Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 10:29:56 02/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2005 at 13:17:53, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 18, 2005 at 12:23:16, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>>You say 700 for the book. >> >>Correction: I did not say that. Vincent said it. >> >>I dont agree with any of the absolute assumptions: Uri's Blass or Vincent's. >>The Vincent's is just the extreme contrary of the Uri's wrong point. > >I think Uri is right, tuning a book against a specific opponent is not time well >spent in his case. > Well, sometimes you need to adjust your book against a specific opponent because your oppoenents is known to play very well that opening. What to use a "stupid" random book or a non-book when you can get a remarkable difference in score against a particular opponent. The book task is an integral activity. Tuning all the book but also a particular task for specific opponents. I see that you will be caught by your opponents to. I dont know your engine. But if you follow the Uri's concepto, you know what the result will be. >There is still more potential to improve the engine, and since that is a better >all-round improvement it's to prefer. > >>No. The engine is the core of the chess software component. If you add a tuned >>book for the engine and well tested (where the engine "feels" Ok with every >>resultant position after the opening)", the book evidently will help a lot the >>engine. >> >>How much? In Diep about 30% of the games. In Zappa about 25% of the games. > >Yes but what is "help a lot"? Look the answer: 30% of the total score reached by Diep in testings and 25% of the total score reached by Zappa in private tests. The books was responsible of 30% and 25% of the score reached for every mentioned engine. > >-S. - 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.