Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Just learning capability?

Author: Tom Kerrigan

Date: 11:12:21 06/13/00

Go up one level in this thread


On June 13, 2000 at 01:57:30, Mogens Larsen wrote:

>On June 12, 2000 at 18:34:30, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>
>>Wouldn't that be the best way to solve the problem, though? No bloody shins OR
>>sore hands. And the rock still gets moved.
>
>Yes, that would indeed be the easiest way, but it might not be the best.
>
>>Well, if you don't like that argument, look at it from another point of view...
>>
>>Imagine that opening books hadn't been invented. Now imagine that Stefan (to
>>pick a random programmer) puts an opening book in Shredder. Of course, Shredder
>>jumps to the top of the SSDF list and is 100 points better than any other
>>program because it has an opening book. What would you say?
>>
>>A) "Wow!! Shredder can play beautiful opening moves instantly! Stefan is a
>>brillant programmer and opening books are a tremendous benefit to computer
>>chess!"
>>
>>or
>>
>>B) "Stefan is such a cheater. He shouldn't be allowed to use that stupid book
>>and I'm never going to buy Shredder."
>
>I don't think I would go with any of the above, a little too black or white IMO.
>The contest between Shredder and other programs would just be interesting as it
>has a clear advantage using an opening book. From a testgame point of view it's
>important with equal terms, unless you want to determine the gain from using
>books.

Equal terms is a pipe dream.

Let's say one program has a better evaluation function than another. Or searches
faster. Should it be handicapped in the name of equal terms?

-Tom



This page took 0.01 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.