Author: José Carlos
Date: 07:01:41 09/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 2002 at 09:50:10, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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 LOL! That's how I see it, yes. :) 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.