Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:02:17 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 07:22:28, Steve Coladonato wrote: >There is a very long thread here concerning the use of a book developed for one >program being used by another program. I am not a programmer, so I don't >understand the ramifications of this. But, I do have a question(s). If the >same book were used by all engines, would that not be a fair comparison of the >engines strength? As long as a program is "in" book, it is not using any of its >internal algorithms so the moves it is making are recognized as "best" for a >particular line/opening. > >Would a book, the one in question in the thread, be better than ECO or NCO? And >if so, why is it not published. Or, is the book in question, mainly oriented to >tactical play to match the accepted strength of computers. Have the lines in >the book been developed by a computer or are they still the lines that have been >developed by Masters since whenever? >It seems that a book is developed after the fact to complement a particular >engines "style" or, better, the programmer's understanding of the algorithms. >Very similar to way humans acquire a preference for one opening vs. another. > >Steve I admit this is a matter of opinion. Mine, as a programmer, is that the book is part of the program. I myself don't make a difference between "program" and "engine", but some do. In those cases, the engine is considered the part that is used to analyze, so book, time management, playing styles, etc are excluded from that definition. If you want to know what engine is the best to analyze games (from GM's or from you or whatever) then it's a bad idea to match them, because one could win due to better pondering scheme or better book learning, while this doesn't help analyzing games. If, on the other hand, you want to know which "full program" is best, then playing games is the way to do it. A "full program" consist of everything _including_ the book. As for your question, if you use the same book for all programs, you're not measuring anything at all: not the analyze capabilities (because pondering or time management would distort the result) nor the programs' strength (a not own part of the program would distort the result). Note that chess programs have "internal algorithms" for book usage and learning. Some programs decide upon % of times a move is used; some others perform a shallow search to decide (between the book moves); others use its own results to decide (or even extend the book, like mine) what move to choose, an so forth. As for the contents of the books, there're many different books. Some just take a GM games collection and create a tree from them. Some add moves one by one. Some mix both. Some use it's own program's games. Some analyze lines personally and include them in the book... And then there's automated learning by the engine. Some of this automatically learned moves are added to the main book. So many options... José C.
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.