Answers.Body: <p>To add to SmallChess's answer, Stockfish as an engine doesn't come with an opening book. Those are separate inputs, and you can give Stockfish whatever opening book you want. Therefore, if the AlphaZero paper doesn't say the authors gave Stockfish an opening book, it didn't have one.</p>
  
  <p>See <a href="https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-to-install-brainfish-the-best-chess-program-in-the-world" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this thread</a> on Chess.com for more about Stockfish playing with the Cerebellum opening book (aka "Brainfish"). You can see from the rating list that the opening book is worth about 50 elo - a substantial amount. You can also see the difference in the TCEC S14 superfinal, which was played with set openings, and the rapid bonus afterwards, played without books. Leela (an AlphaZero clone) narrowly lost the superfinal, but annihilated Stockfish in the bookless bonus.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-21T20:13:20.323Z
Answers.Text: Leela isn't quiet an AlphaZero clone, IMO.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-21T12:10:56.057Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-03-21T12:10:56.057Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.Body: <p>Stockfish stopped using opening books a long time ago. That is, it's an engine, and if you want to use an opening book, you have to use it in UI that you use to play the game or in the software you use to interface with the engine, playing book moves without even telling Stockfish about that.</p>
  <p>There's no way to tell Stockfish about existing books (the commands were removed completely), and it's not expecting to use any.</p>
  <p>OTOH, Stockfish can and would gladly use end game tables (Syzygy).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-28T18:17:40.840Z
Answers.Text: Given this fact it was harsh of Nakamura to call the match "dishonest" because of the lack of an opening book for Stockfish.
Answers.UserDisplayName: kuzzooroo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-29T03:13:48.227Z
Answers.Text: @kuzzooroo Nakamura is not a programmer, all minor implementation details of the engine interaction with GUI might have escaped him. Another tidbit would be, the games were not played from the initial position, but from some kind of preset position, in which case the importance of the opening book is not that crucial.
Answers.UserDisplayName: lenik
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-28T03:03:28.747Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-12-28T03:03:28.747Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: lenik
Answers.Body: <p>Both Nakamura and the StackExchange answer were correct - Stockfish didn't use an opening book. I think Google did that to make a fair comparison as AlphaZero wasn't using an opening book as well.</p>
  <p><strong>EDIT</strong></p>
  <p>I didn't see anything about opening book for Stockfish in the paper. I'm not the only one.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p><a href="http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65910&amp;postdays=0&amp;postorder=asc&amp;highlight=stockfish+book&amp;topic_view=flat&amp;start=10" rel="noreferrer">http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65910&amp;postdays=0&amp;postorder=asc&amp;highlight=stockfish+book&amp;topic_view=flat&amp;start=10</a></p>
  <p>As far as I read the paper, I didn't see a book for Stockfish mentioned, so I guess, match was bookless.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>and</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p><a href="http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65909&amp;highlight=stockfish+book" rel="noreferrer">http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65909&amp;highlight=stockfish+book</a></p>
  <p>While this is indeed incredible, show me how it beats SF dev with good book and syzygy on equal hardware in a 1000 game match.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-12-12T02:29:27.403Z
Answers.Text: Thanks @SmallChess. Is there a canonical source for this info? I did not find it in the paper.
Answers.UserDisplayName: kuzzooroo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-12-12T04:11:37.683Z
Answers.Text: @kuzzooroo I've added some links. There is no mention at all about opening book for SF in the paper. Please consider to accept my answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-12-12T06:03:16.417Z
Answers.Text: AlphaZero itself is a book, I don't think that the match is fair.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-12-22T09:26:44.863Z
Answers.Text: Opening books and tablebases are crutches that a whole generation of chess engine software has grown to become dependent on. The match is fair in the sense that both engines are not relying on pre-recorded moves to play at a higher level, the emphasis is on machine intelligence and not dictation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: prusswan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-28T19:06:16.410Z
Answers.Text: I still haven't found a canonical source for this, but there's discussion all over the place based on Stockfish not having an opening book.
Answers.UserDisplayName: kuzzooroo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-12-11T23:40:08.663Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-12-12T04:11:02.603Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-17T09:59:59.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Body: <p>I have seen some commentary that implies that Stockfish did not have access to an opening book in its much-reported match with AlphaZero, but I cannot find a conclusive citation, and my inability to do so has me wondering if maybe Stockfish did have an opening book after all.</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://www.chess.com/news/view/google-s-alphazero-destroys-stockfish-in-100-game-match" rel="noreferrer">For example</a>:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>GM Hikaru Nakamura...called the match "dishonest" and pointed out that
    Stockfish's methodology requires it to have an openings book for
    optimal performance. While he doesn't think the ultimate winner would
    have changed, Nakamura thought the size of the winning score would be
    mitigated.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>or, from <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/19378/2736">a StackExchange answer</a>:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Stockfish...wasn't allowed to use an opening book which makes it
    consider many moves in shallow depths.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>It's worth noting that even if Stockfish didn't have an opening book for the canonical 100 game match, page 6 of <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01815.pdf" rel="noreferrer">the paper</a> shows that AlphaZero is dominant when you start from a variety of common openings. Nonetheless I wonder why they would handicap Stockfish this way.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-16T13:06:17.153Z
Comments.Text: Just FYI in April 2019 an updated version of AlphaZero was run against "a variant of Stockfish that uses a strong opening book". The results were more favourable to stockfish, but AlphaZero was still the overall winner by a convincing margin.
Comments.UserDisplayName: fostandy
Tags: <engines><alphazero>
Title: Did Stockfish have access to an opening book in its games against AlphaZero?
ThreadText: # Did Stockfish have access to an opening book in its games against AlphaZero?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-12-11)
  
  I have seen some commentary that implies that Stockfish did not have access to an opening book in its much-reported match with AlphaZero, but I cannot find a conclusive citation, and my inability to do so has me wondering if maybe Stockfish did have an opening book after all.
  
  [For example](https://www.chess.com/news/view/google-s-alphazero-destroys-stockfish-in-100-game-match):
  
  > GM Hikaru Nakamura...called the match "dishonest" and pointed out that
  > Stockfish's methodology requires it to have an openings book for
  > optimal performance. While he doesn't think the ultimate winner would
  > have changed, Nakamura thought the size of the winning score would be
  > mitigated.
  
  or, from [a StackExchange answer](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/19378/2736):
  
  > Stockfish...wasn't allowed to use an opening book which makes it
  > consider many moves in shallow depths.
  
  It's worth noting that even if Stockfish didn't have an opening book for the canonical 100 game match, page 6 of [the paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01815.pdf) shows that AlphaZero is dominant when you start from a variety of common openings. Nonetheless I wonder why they would handicap Stockfish this way.
  
  **Tags:** engines, alphazero
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Just FYI in April 2019 an updated version of AlphaZero was run against "a variant of Stockfish that uses a strong opening book". The results were more favourable to stockfish, but AlphaZero was still the overall winner by a convincing margin.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2017-12-11. Score: 9 | Accepted answer
  
  Both Nakamura and the StackExchange answer were correct - Stockfish didn't use an opening book. I think Google did that to make a fair comparison as AlphaZero wasn't using an opening book as well.
  
  **EDIT**
  
  I didn't see anything about opening book for Stockfish in the paper. I'm not the only one.
  
  > <http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65910&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=stockfish+book&topic_view=flat&start=10>
  >
  > As far as I read the paper, I didn't see a book for Stockfish mentioned, so I guess, match was bookless.
  
  and
  
  > <http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65909&highlight=stockfish+book>
  >
  > While this is indeed incredible, show me how it beats SF dev with good book and syzygy on equal hardware in a 1000 game match.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks @username_5. Is there a canonical source for this info? I did not find it in the paper.  
  > **username_5**: @username_0 I've added some links. There is no mention at all about opening book for SF in the paper. Please consider to accept my answer.  
  > **username_6**: AlphaZero itself is a book, I don't think that the match is fair.  
  > **username_7**: Opening books and tablebases are crutches that a whole generation of chess engine software has grown to become dependent on. The match is fair in the sense that both engines are not relying on pre-recorded moves to play at a higher level, the emphasis is on machine intelligence and not dictation.  
  > **username_0**: I still haven't found a canonical source for this, but there's discussion all over the place based on Stockfish not having an opening book.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2019-03-21. Score: 4
  
  To add to username_5's answer, Stockfish as an engine doesn't come with an opening book. Those are separate inputs, and you can give Stockfish whatever opening book you want. Therefore, if the AlphaZero paper doesn't say the authors gave Stockfish an opening book, it didn't have one.
  
  See [this thread](https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-to-install-brainfish-the-best-chess-program-in-the-world) on Chess.com for more about Stockfish playing with the Cerebellum opening book (aka "Brainfish"). You can see from the rating list that the opening book is worth about 50 elo - a substantial amount. You can also see the difference in the TCEC S14 superfinal, which was played with set openings, and the rapid bonus afterwards, played without books. Leela (an AlphaZero clone) narrowly lost the superfinal, but annihilated Stockfish in the bookless bonus.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: Leela isn't quiet an AlphaZero clone, IMO.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2020-12-28. Score: 1
  
  Stockfish stopped using opening books a long time ago. That is, it's an engine, and if you want to use an opening book, you have to use it in UI that you use to play the game or in the software you use to interface with the engine, playing book moves without even telling Stockfish about that.
  
  There's no way to tell Stockfish about existing books (the commands were removed completely), and it's not expecting to use any.
  
  OTOH, Stockfish can and would gladly use end game tables (Syzygy).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Given this fact it was harsh of Nakamura to call the match "dishonest" because of the lack of an opening book for Stockfish.  
  > **username_4**: @username_0 Nakamura is not a programmer, all minor implementation details of the engine interaction with GUI might have escaped him. Another tidbit would be, the games were not played from the initial position, but from some kind of preset position, in which case the importance of the opening book is not that crucial.  
  
  ---
  
  