Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 06:40:49 02/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2005 at 07:41:04, Uri Blass 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? >> >>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 Yes - I would also like to see one of the books guys attempt to answer this question. Maybe we could even convince SSDF to do the experiment. Vas
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.