Polyglot - merge-book oddity

[hgm]

Doesn't the latest one get interrupted by the TC? If the engine waited for them all to finish, wouldn't it lose on time?

Books could be mini-maxed and that would be an improvement over current polyglot 2*W+D, but this still leaves undesirables. For example, in the fool's mate, if you have a PGN with as many 2... Qg5 as 2... Qh4#, you may go for 2. g4. I see no reason to leave Qg5 for the mini-max process to deal with.

Usually one does not create an opening book during a game.

[Rebel]

Well, I uploaded the already compiled fixed version from HGM here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... E15NjVyY2M

I will remove this upload now, as HGM has done more essential fixes later anyway.
If there is still interest I could compile the newer fixes and upload again.
Just make a request here or via PM.

Is your compile a separate executable or an Polyglot update?

In case of the latter that would be a serious change as it affects the weights in book-1, not everybody wants that.

I don't quite understand your question?

It should be obvious from the thread reading that I just compiled HGMs first change (for everyone who was interested) and did a quick test on it.
Also in your reply, one can actually see my quote, that I had deleted it meanwhile and the reason for the deletion is also given...

My reply and question was on the part I colored red.

[hgm]

Do you mean to say there are actually pieces that would prefer the old behavior, where positions in book 1 completely eclipse these from book 2? This is not what one would generally consider 'merging'. It is more like a 'replace' function.

Of course it would be possible to keep both functionalities, each activated through a different option.

[Guenther]

Well, I uploaded the already compiled fixed version from HGM here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... E15NjVyY2M

I will remove this upload now, as HGM has done more essential fixes later anyway.
If there is still interest I could compile the newer fixes and upload again.
Just make a request here or via PM.

Is your compile a separate executable or an Polyglot update?

In case of the latter that would be a serious change as it affects the weights in book-1, not everybody wants that.

I don't quite understand your question?

It should be obvious from the thread reading that I just compiled HGMs first change (for everyone who was interested) and did a quick test on it.
Also in your reply, one can actually see my quote, that I had deleted it meanwhile and the reason for the deletion is also given...

My reply and question was on the part I colored red.

I still don't understand what you mean? What exactly is your question?
I said 'I could compile the newer fixes (done by HGM after my first compilation, which shouldn't needed to be mentioned at all,
if one has followed this thread) and upload again' (I also coloured the 'could' now for you, because it did not happen anyway)

@other readers
Does anyone understand what Ed means? It feels a bit like an endless loop now.

[Rebel]

Do you mean to say there are actually pieces that would prefer the old behavior, where positions in book 1 completely eclipse these from book 2? This is not what one would generally consider 'merging'. It is more like a 'replace' function.

I am just worried that folks who did not read this thread will use the new version without understanding the consequences, hence I gave it a different name, not Polyglot but Merge-Books.

Of course it would be possible to keep both functionalities, each activated through a different option.

Maybe even better that way.

[Rebel]

Well, I uploaded the already compiled fixed version from HGM here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... E15NjVyY2M

I will remove this upload now, as HGM has done more essential fixes later anyway.
If there is still interest I could compile the newer fixes and upload again.
Just make a request here or via PM.

Is your compile a separate executable or an Polyglot update?

In case of the latter that would be a serious change as it affects the weights in book-1, not everybody wants that.

I don't quite understand your question?

It should be obvious from the thread reading that I just compiled HGMs first change (for everyone who was interested) and did a quick test on it.
Also in your reply, one can actually see my quote, that I had deleted it meanwhile and the reason for the deletion is also given...

My reply and question was on the part I colored red.

I still don't understand what you mean? What exactly is your question?
I said 'I could compile the newer fixes (done by HGM after my first compilation, which shouldn't needed to be mentioned at all,
if one has followed this thread) and upload again' (I also coloured the 'could' now for you, because it did not happen anyway)

@other readers
Does anyone understand what Ed means? It feels a bit like an endless loop now.

I will rephrase - if you get a PM with the request for the new version, then: what name do you give that compile, Polyglot.exe or new name as I have done?

[Guenther]

I will rephrase :D - if you get a PM with the request for the new version, then: what name do you give that compile, Polyglot.exe or new name as I have done?

This question finally makes some sense for me :)
There will be no request, because I am not interested it in anymore. (actually I wasn't from the beginning, I just wanted to help)

If I had done it, the binary would have become the name the source had offered for it of course, which wouldn't have been my responsibilty,
as the fork is maintained by HGM. So I guess I was most of the time the wrong recipient for your question(s).

[hgm]

I am just worried that folks who did not read this thread will use the new version without understanding the consequences, hence I gave it a different name, not Polyglot but Merge-Books.

Well, the old behavior should count as a bug, right? No one should ever expect a 'merge' to work this way. You didn't expect this, and called it an 'oddity'...

So I suppose that it will cause more confusion all in all to let the old behavior persist, whether in a program called polyglot.exe or in any orther executable. If the old behavior should stay available, I would make it available under another option name.

[Michel]

I am just worried that folks who did not read this thread will use the new version without understanding the consequences, hence I gave it a different name, not Polyglot but Merge-Books.

Well, the old behavior should count as a bug, right?'...
.

For historical accuracy I should point out that this behaviour is by design. I was told by the late Marc Lacrosse that he requested it to be this way when he created the opening book for Fruit when it was competing in the WCCC. It goes without saying that Fabian Letouzey could have implemented a symmetric merge if he had wanted to.

[Ozymandias]

I am just worried that folks who did not read this thread will use the new version without understanding the consequences, hence I gave it a different name, not Polyglot but Merge-Books.

Well, the old behavior should count as a bug, right?'...
.

For historical accuracy I should point out that this behaviour is by design. I was told by the late Marc Lacrosse that he requested it to be this way when he created the opening book for Fruit when it was competing in the WCCC. It goes without saying that Fabian Letouzey could have implemented a symmetric merge if he had wanted to.

Exactly, you don't describe a bug's behavior when you talk about a new feature (as already quoted). I didn't know who's idea it was, thanx for the historical note.

BTW, I find the way it works to be useful and a lot of fun to play with, if you know what you're doing.