Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 00:43:27 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 03:16:36, Thorsten Czub wrote: >Its nonsense to play with a big book of writer JN against another big book of >author JN. The result in the end is nearly random, depending in which book >preparation line you land. Here it was -1 against Tiger. This makes no sense. > >the engines should IMO play themselves, and not lose a game due to a stupid book >line. > >they can do IMO tournaments for book writers seperate, there the book writers >can get their climax after such games :-)) but for a national championship i >would wish the programmers or programs would learn that books are made to HELP >and engine, not to decide games. the engine is the important thing, not the >book. >in this case the engine had almost no chance to stop the book line from running >into a lost position. programmers should not follow book lines BLINDLY. they >should let run the engine in the background and check if the book moves make >sense. if e.g. the book move is 0.30 weaker then the move the engine choses, i >would play out the engine move. Jeroen commented during the game that the opening was a dead draw but that Tiger was completely misplaying it. -- GCP
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.