Answers.Body: <p>Yes, top level engines' authors generally also prepare an opening book with their engine.</p>
  <p>But this process does not only involve computer matches. They make use of both computer matches, GM matches, and machine-learning (which you explain in your question)</p>
  <p><a href="http://www.rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Rybka%204%20book" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This</a> page has an interview about this topic on Rybka 4 book.</p>
  <p>A quote from the page:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Q: Your Rybka 4 Aquarium opening book will be released soon. It's clear that you put a huge amount of work into the book.</p>
  <p>A: Yes, I put a lot of work into it. It helps that I find it really interesting to analyze unknown positions and ideas from chess books, chess practice or computer games and find my own solutions. Today's opening preparation is very deep. In some cases players know their lines from the opening all the way to the endgame. A less prepared opponent will probably lose his way somewhere in the middlegame against such preparation. Things are looking even worse in computer games - long lines, often 50 moves or more, leading to a draw are similar to pre-arranged draws in human games.</p>
  <p>The technical advances mean that opening analysis is very different from what it used to be a few years ago, not to mention a few decades ago. However, even with today's amazing computer tools, the work of the modern opening book author is still very demanding.</p>
  <p>My method of creating a strong opening book consists of several steps. Assuming you already have a good database, the first step is the selection of games. Making a good hand-typed book is impossible. The selected games serve as the &quot;raw material,&quot; and generate the initial version of the book. This step may only require a few hours of work. The next step is to fine-tune the move priorities. This is a very time consuming task, and in the case of the Rybka Aquarium book, it took a few weeks.</p>
  <p>Testing the book is an independent process. First you run a test and then you look at the results and try to find weak points in the book. After further analysis you may find some improvements, which require updates to the book and another test cycle must be run. This process will take a few days.</p>
  <p>Last, but not least is the creative phase of making an opening book. Here you need to find new ideas and get a deeper understanding of the lines in the book. One recurring question in this phase is why engines give a low evaluation, or play badly positions which are very good according to my own understanding of the position. This phase is not only very time consuming, it also needs a lot of creativity and manual interaction and guiding of the engine analysis.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-03-12T18:31:38.083Z
Answers.Text: Thanks. Hmmm... but according to this interview, there's a selection of games of raw material. I assume these are games humans have played against each other in the past. Isn't this automatically going to skew the engine to use past openings? I mean, it will lead to variations of existing openings, but nothing radically different. I really wish there was an engine that assumed no pre-existing opening theory at all.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ameet Sharma
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-03-12T19:32:44.070Z
Answers.Text: There is an engine, but it is not practical to ignore existing opening theory, and GM games. They can build an opening book only using computers matches. But it would be an inferior book.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-03-12T18:12:29.280Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-03-12T18:12:29.280Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-17T09:59:59.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Body: <p>I'm referring to an engine that plays repeated games against itself and human opponents... and uses that data to develop its own opening book.</p>
  
  <p>I'd think computers would have been used to develop new chess opening theory. Has this actually happened historically? </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-11-23T09:47:43.103Z
Comments.Text: See also these questions (and their answers): http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/5933/how-to-create-your-own-opening-book-for-your-own-chess-engine http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/7848/why-different-openings-are-used-by-computer-players
Comments.UserDisplayName: Sir Cornflakes
Tags: <opening><engines>
Title: Has any chess engine developed its own opening book?
ThreadText: # Has any chess engine developed its own opening book?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-03-12)
  
  I'm referring to an engine that plays repeated games against itself and human opponents... and uses that data to develop its own opening book.
  
  I'd think computers would have been used to develop new chess opening theory. Has this actually happened historically?
  
  **Tags:** opening, engines
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: See also these questions (and their answers): http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/5933/how-to-create-your-own-opening-book-for-your-own-chess-engine http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/7848/why-different-openings-are-used-by-computer-players  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-03-12. Score: 4 | Accepted answer
  
  Yes, top level engines' authors generally also prepare an opening book with their engine.
  
  But this process does not only involve computer matches. They make use of both computer matches, GM matches, and machine-learning (which you explain in your question)
  
  [This](http://www.rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Rybka%204%20book) page has an interview about this topic on Rybka 4 book.
  
  A quote from the page:
  
  > Q: Your Rybka 4 Aquarium opening book will be released soon. It's clear that you put a huge amount of work into the book.
  >
  > A: Yes, I put a lot of work into it. It helps that I find it really interesting to analyze unknown positions and ideas from chess books, chess practice or computer games and find my own solutions. Today's opening preparation is very deep. In some cases players know their lines from the opening all the way to the endgame. A less prepared opponent will probably lose his way somewhere in the middlegame against such preparation. Things are looking even worse in computer games - long lines, often 50 moves or more, leading to a draw are similar to pre-arranged draws in human games.
  >
  > The technical advances mean that opening analysis is very different from what it used to be a few years ago, not to mention a few decades ago. However, even with today's amazing computer tools, the work of the modern opening book author is still very demanding.
  >
  > My method of creating a strong opening book consists of several steps. Assuming you already have a good database, the first step is the selection of games. Making a good hand-typed book is impossible. The selected games serve as the "raw material," and generate the initial version of the book. This step may only require a few hours of work. The next step is to fine-tune the move priorities. This is a very time consuming task, and in the case of the Rybka Aquarium book, it took a few weeks.
  >
  > Testing the book is an independent process. First you run a test and then you look at the results and try to find weak points in the book. After further analysis you may find some improvements, which require updates to the book and another test cycle must be run. This process will take a few days.
  >
  > Last, but not least is the creative phase of making an opening book. Here you need to find new ideas and get a deeper understanding of the lines in the book. One recurring question in this phase is why engines give a low evaluation, or play badly positions which are very good according to my own understanding of the position. This phase is not only very time consuming, it also needs a lot of creativity and manual interaction and guiding of the engine analysis.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks. Hmmm... but according to this interview, there's a selection of games of raw material. I assume these are games humans have played against each other in the past. Isn't this automatically going to skew the engine to use past openings? I mean, it will lead to variations of existing openings, but nothing radically different. I really wish there was an engine that assumed no pre-existing opening theory at all.  
  > **username_2**: There is an engine, but it is not practical to ignore existing opening theory, and GM games. They can build an opening book only using computers matches. But it would be an inferior book.  
  
  ---
  
  