Author: Nicholas Cooper
Date: 17:38:55 09/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
Stefan, Not that I'm a chess programmer but I couldn't agree more with your comments... Tournament players, for example, are often much better off playing openings which result in positions they feel comfortable in and play well, regardless of the "objective" evaluation of the position. So why shouldn't the same apply to computer programs? They too have their "personalities" and strengths/weaknesses. Congratulations on your victory in the WCCC- I was particularly impressed by Shredder's ability to defend difficult positions and gain those extra half points- a quality I have always admired in top human players. Regards, Nick Cooper On September 06, 2000 at 15:37:51, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >On September 06, 2000 at 14:59:23, Shanti wrote: > >>Hi >> >>To get a very bad position in 2 out of 9 games is not a good sign. >> >>I beleive that the quality of the book can be measured by the evaluation of the >>program when it gets out of the book. > >I don't think that this is really important. It is more important that the >program knows what to do and find the right moves. The evaluation doesn't matter >much. > >> I think the type of position is very >>important and if Shredder likes certain positions than the book should do its >>best to give Shredder those positions. > >Yes, I agree. This is what we are trying to do. > >> >>Anyway, I watched Shredder openings during the Israeli Chess League and to be >>honest, I wasn't very happy with what I saw :-) > >We had a completely different book then. > >Stefan > >[snip]
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.