Author: blass uri
Date: 11:01:58 06/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 13:23:19, Hans Gerber wrote: >On June 14, 2000 at 11:54:38, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On June 13, 2000 at 19:57:39, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On June 13, 2000 at 19:18:45, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>> And even the opening database data (while - admittedly - more important than >>>>endgame tablebase data) is not the achilles' heel. If you want to strike at the >>>>heart of a chess program, simply remove the data from the eval function. Now >>>>we'll see who plays crappy chess. Essentially, what you will have is my >>>>retarded move generator chess program. The GM's won't have much problem with >>>>that, but neither will anyone else for that matter. >>> >>>You still don't get it. It's not a question of crippling a chess program, not as >>>far as I'm concerned, and it involves other considerations than the simple ones >>>you present. Of course a human brain is responsible for the code involved in a >>>chess program and the same thing applies for opening books and endgames tables, >>>so it has no bearing on the discussion at hand whatsoever. Opening books and >>>endgame tables are simply not a product of the programmer and rarely something >>>produced by the program itself. A chess program should play chess on its own >>>terms, not through more or less random exterior additions and attachments. You >>>might say it's a question of existentialism. What constitutes a genuine computer >>>chess program? >>> >>>Best wishes... >>>Mogens >> >>This is getting old. >> >>"Opening books and endgame tables are simply not a product of the programmer and >>rarely something produced by the program itself." >> >>RAM is not a product of the programmer and rarely something produced by the >>program itself. >> >>Hard Disks are not a product of the programmer and rarely something produced by >>the program itself. >> >>The rules of the game are not a product of the programmer and rarely something >>produced by the program itself. >> >>EGTBs and the operating system are not products of the programmer and rarely >>something produced by the program itself. >> >>Etc. Etc. Etc. >> >>I have a BUNCH of tables in my code that I wrote separate programs to generate >>since it is a pain in the butt to generate a 4K table by hand. I did not create >>them by hand, but I still created them. >> >>Every aspect of a computer program is put there by the programmer. Where the >>programmer acquires a piece of software, hardware, or data is irrelevent. It was >>the PROGRAMMER who put it all together and came up with the overall package. >> >>Not some random GM from 80 years ago who played a game. Not the customers. Not >>you. Not me. >> >>THE PROGRAMMER. >> >>Who gives a rat's rear end how he put together his program. The two important >>things for most people are: >> >>1) What features does the program have? >> >>2) How well does the program play chess? >> >>Now, these two can be segregated further such as elements of the GUI, does the >>program play a strong endgame, etc. But, the bottom line is that it does not >>matter much what elements make up the internals of a program. A given program is >>what it is and talking about whether it should have external elements such as >>opening books and endgame tables (which by the way are no different than the >>tables in my code which where generated by an external program) is kind of >>silly. >> >>This entire thread is basically ludicrous and just an exercise in jaw movement >>(or typing movement, whatever). >> >>KarinsDad :) > >Ok, as long as you want to play comp vs. comp matches this is ok. > >But please think about the following! Not even the World Champion himself does >play the whole ECO down to move 30 in less than 2 seconds. Are you really >convinced that this is a proof for the ability to "play chess"? Every good GM >has a selective opening repertory. But e.g. FRITZ plays down the lines of any >opening even on lower levels, say on 1600. I think that opening book is part of the ability to play chess. I think that trusting the ECO down to move 30 is a mistake because there are mistakes in the ECO. bigger opening book is not always better. 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.