Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 06:06:20 01/05/06
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Kirill, I agree that testing without books or with generic books can be just as interesting as testing with the engine's own books (and indeed I run all my own tests without books). However, I disagree with almost all the reasons you give for prefering to test with the engine books: On January 05, 2006 at 08:02:37, Kirill Kryukov wrote: >1. Opening book quality is directly proportional to the amount of money invested >into the chess program. Engine strength, on the other hand, is proportional >mostly to the talent and efforts of the programmer. No. Engine strength is also to a large extent proportional to the amount of money invested. If I had enough money, I could quit my job and work on my engine many hours every day, instead of just an occasional hour on late nights or in the weekends. I could buy a dozen computers to help me run automated matches very quickly. Instead of clumsily attempt to program in a low-level language which I don't really know at all, I could write prototypes of my program in Lisp and hire a C or assembly language wizard to do the dirty optimisation and low-level work. All of this would give a *much* bigger strength boost to my engine+book package than if I hired some opening book expert to work on my opening book. Writing a top chess engine isn't just about talent. It also takes lots of time; probably too much time for the average hobbyist. Of course talent helps, but I don't think this is any less true for book creation. I know that I could never make a good opening book, no matter how much time or money you gave me to do it. >2. Opening book can easily be a team work, most engines are creation of a single >guy. Most of the high quality opening books *are* creations of a single person, just like chess engines. In principle opening books can of course be made by a team, but so can chess engines. Besides, what is wrong with team work? >3. Opening book is about memorization, engine is about playing chess. Huh? I don't see how creating an opening book for a chess program has anything to do with memorisation. >4. Many amateur engines have no any reasonable book, since their authors can't >afford to hire a chess professional to create and tune one. Such engines will be >in big disadvantage, even if the author is genius and invested lot of work. You could say exactly the same thing about the engines as about the books. Most amateur engines are significantly weaker than the commercial engines, because their authors cannot afford to spend the huge amount of time you need to produce a world class engine. >5. If we publish list of engines with own books, it will help to the marketing >of commertial chess programs (Particularly those from Chessbase). I would much >rather help to the amateur authors. This is no less true if you test without books. If you publish a list with commercial programs, it will help the marketing of these programs, regardless of which books are used in the tests. Also, you help amateur authors just as much when playing with the engine's own book. Amateurs are interested in improving their books, too. 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.