Author: blass uri
Date: 08:14:19 05/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2000 at 09:18:08, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 25, 2000 at 08:58:13, blass uri wrote: > >>I am not against the general idea of playing without the opening books. >> >>I am simply against the idea of doing it without the agreement of the >>programmers. > >Basically, I can test _any_ program with the parameters I choose AFAIK. If I did >own a couple of commercial programs, I would gladly conduct a test without >opening book and publish the results here and on my website. The importance >would be somewhat theoretical, but interesting nonetheless. The implementation >of opening game learning would ensure to a certain degree that the games were >not identical. Some programs do not use learning by position so you will get identical games. > >>I think that you should at least tell the programmers one year before you do >>this test in order to give them time to prepare a better version for this test. > >I don't see why. The program is commercially available, so playing without a >book should be a feature of the program itself. > >>It is not fair to test a program in conditions that the programmer did not think >>about. > >What makes you think that "a programmer" didn't consider implementing opening >knowledge. I know that some programs do not have important opening knowledge(Junior without opening book played after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 the move d5 against xie when it had not the opening book and I know that even simple free programs play better without opening book). I told the programmer(Amir Ban) about similiar problems when I tested Junior but he did not fix it. I believe that Amir could fix it if he thought that it is important. Uri
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.