Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 12:05:49 05/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2000 at 14:45:28, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >Ridiculous ! Part of writing a program is too teach it how to play openings. >Call it any way you want _opening book_ or just part of in-line programming >(which the logic could be: "If that, then this or this or this or this" which >is a book ! You're not teaching it to play openings, but _telling_ it how to play the opening. I believe there's a difference. >Humans have memories and GM's know openings backwards and forwards and they can >prepare there own human book. Why should a computer be so handicaped with book. >What is so different. The whole idea is of programming a computer to play chess >and openings are part of this notion. To take that away from the program is a >violation of its play level. The programs are not going to agree to this I dont >think. Perhaps they should embed this opening logic in the engine, eval or >whereever and not have a opening book for we purchasers. Then the GM's would >complain that they cannot have access to the comp's opening logic. Now would not >that be a shame ! I don't understand that argument. It's not a question of computer rights. A computer don't have rights regarding handicaps and playing level. A computer is allowed to use a book presently, but that's not the issue here. The issue is whether opening books and various other auxiliary parameters are used to avoid improving the program in these areas. Is it too difficult to learn a computer program to begin a chess game without a book? Is it too difficult to improve endgame play without tablebases? Is it too difficult for programs to play a decent game of chess without very fast hardware? That's the implications of the GM view expressed in the article. >It boils down to this, The GM's can see the hand writing on the wall and they >want excuses to handicap programs to set them back another decade. Like the man >was crying about, computers are getting so powerful and fast. 1.5 ghz speed from >Intel by the end of this year. Imagine a quad or eight of these things running >any of the better programs. Why would they want to do that? They can just refuse to play against chess programs and achieve the same. Best wishes... 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.