Author: Pete Galati
Date: 14:13:36 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 16:28:44, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 13, 2000 at 15:58:49, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On June 13, 2000 at 15:40:53, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>How is an opening book any more or less inherent to a chess program than an >>>evaluation function? That's absurd. >>>-Tom >> >>I don't find it absurd at all. A chess program can function without an opening >>book, but no without an evaluation function AFAIK. Not comparable IMHO. > >A chess program needs only one thing to play chess: >A legal move generator. > >No evaluation is needed. When there are no more legal moves, the game is over. That's pretty funny, because at some brief moment I though that SAN could play Chess, and I hadn't looked all that closly at it's code at all. So I was playing against it, and being a lousey Chess player, it still took me several moves to Checkmate the thing, even though it was just basically making random moves. And like an idiot, I'm looking at these moves and trying to figure out why SAN made that move going "hmmm, must have something up it's sleave" It's frightening to think that I might only be marginally better than a program that only has the ability to generate rather random legal moves. Pete
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.