Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 10:13:34 10/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2002 at 12:38:07, Chessfun wrote: >Simple, I say again. Check the PGN's I posted. Compare that to Ruffians output >and it's current PGN move, then see Fritz 7.ctg. Checking the PGN won't make any sense when you don't know what moves where made in book, ie. a before and after. >The ONLY way these moves were added to the current book were either manually or >by creating two specific PGN's for these losses and adding those. That to me >don't comply with the statement made; That isn't the only way and not sufficient to be played. The most obvious method would be to check a few databases to see if the variation has been played before. I've checked your examples and both are reasonably frequent variations and extendable to a significant depth. Depending on the opponent's response of course. >"I haven't spent any time to create an opening book for Ruffian. The opening >book is automatically generated from a rather small pgn file. It has not been >customized for Ruffian." > >Adding specific losses to the book creation PGN, is customization. Depends on the definition of customization. If lack of customization means not touching the PGN file ever again, then everything is customization. But that is nonsense. It makes sense to add new games, remove old and patch holes. The issue is that it doesn't have to be engine related or even beneficial. I do that with a small PGN that is universal. Customization would be most effective starting with something very small and extend it gradually and carefully. The Ruffian book is still very broad and the requirement for a move to be played is frequency, not if it's in the Fritz book. Compared to commercial and other freeware books it doesn't make sense to talk of customization. Regards, Mogens
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.