Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 06:50:10 09/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 2002 at 08:59:41, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 02, 2002 at 08:49:58, José Carlos wrote: > >>On September 02, 2002 at 07:59:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On September 02, 2002 at 06:25:00, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On September 02, 2002 at 04:24:21, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 01, 2002 at 19:12:01, Andrew Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>On Friday I got back from a business trip and saw the discussion going on about >>>>>>the effect of the opening book. Too tired to think of anything else to test, I >>>>>>started a match between postmodernist with its big book (made up of Dann >>>>>>Corbit's games collection) versus postmodernist without a book. To encourage a >>>>>>bit of randomness, I told both versions to randomly vary the time they used for >>>>>>searching the first few moves out of book. I have no position at all on the >>>>>>debate that was going on, but here is some more data anyway: >>>>>> >>>>>>I played 200 games at 5 minutes + 2 seconds increment. Both sides played with no >>>>>>pondering on the same Athlon 1200. There were no duplicates amongst the games >>>>>>(according to Scid; I haven't checked by hand). >>>>>> >>>>>>The final score from the point of view of the version with the book was: >>>>>> >>>>>> +71 =78 -51 >>>>>> >>>>>>With a final score of Withbook 110 - 90 Nobook. >>>>> >>>>>As you and others have demostrated the (good) books have a positive effect on >>>>>the score, but is it because the books leaves them in a superior position, or >>>>>simply because of the time they save playing directly from book? >>>>> >>>>>I'd expect you might also see a score close to 110-90 if you give one program 5 >>>>>min 2 sec inc and the other only 4 min 2 sec inc. It certain is a factor to be >>>>>considered... >>>>> >>>>>-S. >>>>> >>>>>>Andrew >>>>>> >>>>>>PS Irrespective of the significance of the figures given here or elsewhere, I >>>>>>won't participate in any tournament where an opening book is used without >>>>>>explicit permission from its creator to use it in the tournament. >>>>> >>>>>PS >>>>>No matter the effect of the book, it isn't the _engine_ playing.... >>>> >>>> According to _your_ definition of engine. >>> >>>From what I've heard there are GUIs with protocols that handle all the book >>>moves and never even asks the engine for 'advice'. >>>In this case the distinction is clear, it is not the _engine_ playing. >>> >>>It is the combination of hardware, engine and book that makes the package >>>strong. >>> >>>-S. >>> >>>> José C. >> >> There're GUIs that resign, there're some that check legality of moves. Some >>even offer draw! Oh, and some of them control the EGTBs. And some clear the hash >>tables, or the learning tables, or... >> In summary, you can make any definition you want. In my case, my engine does >>all of this itself. I define a GUI as a "graphical user interface". No more, no >>less. An interface just and only takes care of communication. So my book code is >>part of my engine. >> Your definition of engine is "everything but what a GUI can do". Well, then an >>engine is nothing, because a GUI can search as well, why not. >> >> José C. > >The point here is a practical point. >programs can use book that the author is not responsible for if they run under >Fritz7. >The same is for tablebases. > >It is clear that if averno play under Fritz7 then not the averno engine decides >about the moves in the opening. Then, technically, it is not Averno playing, it is frankenstein version of a programs that uses part of Averno and part of Fritz. Miguel > >Uri
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.