Author: Kirill Kryukov
Date: 06:49:08 01/05/06
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Tord, Interesting opinion. Yes, engine itself will also benefit from additional time and money investement. On January 05, 2006 at 09:06:20, Tord Romstad wrote: >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. Yes, to quit job and buy more computers is I guess everyone's dream here. :-) I think all professional engines were once amateur engines, so everyone starts at the same point and works the way up. I am also not aware of anyone hiring assembler guru to develop an engine, while asking someone's help to make book is very common. >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. Hmm.. My point was that book is in more direct proportion from investement, comparing to the engine. You need some good ideas to make a top level engine, but you only need time to make a decent book, if you know how to do it. (I don't know at least). >>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? One person can create a book, then another can pick it up and start improving it right away. It does not work like this with engines, because usually only one person can keep in mind everything and keep working on engine. It takes lot of time to simply understand how an engine works, and even more before you can do meaningful changes or even improvements. :-) >>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. Engine does not think when it uses book. It does not make decisions, they are already made by book designer. While it is opening decisions which are the most interesting and important. >>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. Well, yes there is already this factor. By testing with own book we will double its effect. >>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. I meant that commercial engines tested with huge own books will perform much better than they would with generic book, they will get higher rating, and by that way their marketing will be helped. Now, inspired by Fabien's and Vasik's achievemnts, many amateur authors may get hope to achieve similar or greater results. It's hard to expect that they will produce both great engine and good book. >Tord Best, Kirill
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.