Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:22:53 09/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2004 at 11:57:04, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >On September 15, 2004 at 08:42:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 15, 2004 at 03:13:41, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On September 14, 2004 at 10:30:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I didn't say "never". I said "in important games". That is pretty true. I >>>>have asked this very question to three different GM players, all said that they >>>>have specific favorite openings for important games/matches. >>> >>>i will ask my GM acquaintances.... >>> >>> >>>>And all said they >>>>do _not_ play every opening system, >>> >>>of course not *every* - that should be obvious. but most of them have a couple >>>of different systems they play regularly, and the number of things they play >>>usually gets broader towards the top - which is an indication that the very best >>>players just might be the very best just because they can play all positions. >> >> >>Yes, but compare "a couple" against a book made of basically random games as was >>being discussed here. With the idea that if _both_ programs get "random opening >>positions" it is fair. I don't believe it is... >> > >Why not run an experiment ? Crafty set up your way against crafty with different >book, crafty with ponder off, etc. That way we can see how much difference these >things make. Because we then enter the "you need to play long games" or "you need more games" or ... I don't have time or energy to test something that I already know is true. I've played on ICC with totally random books. Against lots of computers. I know what happens.. :)
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.