Search-Based Opening Book Construction

[Dann Corbit]

You don't understand how the crafty book is generated.
You don't understand how the author's books are generated (there is a large collection, and each is a function of depth of analysis, not just eval)
You don't understand my expertize in understanding book construction and the errors they contain (ask any of the foremost book builders).

Basically, you have no understanding of the problem space, the proposed solution, or my suggestions.

Says a guy who by his own admission didn't even read the paper .
Compared to you, I have read the paper and I do very well understand how OP's book is created. I also have a very good understanding of how Brainfish book is created. You on the contrary don't understand any of those, haven't read the paper, don't understand what I write and try to lead some discussion. Gee. Sorry, but you are totally incompetent.
Once you provide single meaningful argument we can discuss, till then, you can discuss with other trolls, since trolling is the only thing you do on this thread since the very beginning (beside accusing me of constantly spreading hatred with no bases at all?!??)

Of course, I have read the paper by now, as is evidenced by my discussion of the construction of the books as a function of search by depth.

And as usual, you did not address a single point that I raised.

Not important.

BTW, I guess that brainfish may have been generated from data from Ed's site, which I provided, but I do not know this for a fact.

It is a tiny subset of all my data.

Since the algorithm of Brainfish is not published, you must be a real genius to have figured out how it is made.

Of course, everyone can guess that it was a simple minimax, with some analysis to fill in the holes, but that is just a guess.

No advantage to alpha-beta for the minimax of the book, especially since the data volume is very limited compared to a real search.

[Milos]

Of course, I have read the paper by now, as is evidenced by my discussion of the construction of the books as a function of search by depth.

So far only evident thing is that this particular sentence is only thing you actually understood from the paper (I don't go into what you have or haven't read, but a fact is, you don't understand it).

BTW, I guess that brainfish may have been generated from data from Ed's site, which I provided, but I do not know this for a fact.

It is a tiny subset of all my data.

Since the algorithm of Brainfish is not published, you must be a real genius to have figured out how it is made.

Of course, everyone can guess that it was a simple minimax, with some analysis to fill in the holes, but that is just a guess.

No advantage to alpha-beta for the minimax of the book, especially since the data volume is very limited compared to a real search.

All guesses are just guesses, none of that is substantiated by anything but your crystal ball.
Source code of the OP program has also not been published, so unless you have privilege of attaining it and going through it (which is obviously not the case considering your lack of understanding of its operation), all your assumptions are nothing but guesses.
On the other hand, even though Brainfish book creation source has not been publish, book is public domain, and it can be (with a little knowledge that I doubt you actually have) converted to proper book format and analysed. From that a lot of conclusions about move choice and statistics could be derived. Ofc, you wouldn't know that since you overall don't have much clue about Brainfish book (as already demonstrated more than once in this thread).

[Cardoso]

Dan the Principal Variation is:
PV 9:8;10:8;12:16

best regards,
Alvaro