Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 23:33:56 09/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2004 at 23:52:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >The thing is, they play X games with one computer, so learning ought to fix this >up unless the Nimzo lines are so well plotted that everything it tries fails. > >Making a special SSDF opening book is not something I have time to do. Nor >anyone else I know of. IE Peter has some stuff from the WCCC, but we'd not want >to reveal that via SSDF testing as we will likely play in the next WCCC event >and will need a unknown book for it... I don't think it would require a drastically changed book. Just something to differ from 1.d4. Just to shake things up a bit, and vary from what is being expected from Crafty. I found while playing on FICS that when I modified the book to play either 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.Nf3, there was a greater winning percentage in the games, using lower hardware. The main problem with all the Crafty clones out there is they might make their own book.bin files, but almost always have your books.bin, and bookc.bin. When you play 50 Crafty clones in a row and all open basically the same, ie. 1.d4, it is easy to gain learning. So when I varied the opening book, I found the previous learning or "expected" openings played weren't forthcoming, I had an advantage. I think the main thing hurting Crafty in current computer-computer games is the opening standard. During the last CCT and the WCCC Crafty was running on purely massive hardware, and due to that was able to overcome some possible short comings from book openings. The average user doesn't have a Quad Opteron in their back pocket, thus the opening selection has to be just that much better. I could be wrong, and might have a completely different view than yours, but I think it deserves a serious look. Peter
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.