Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: BGN's "no-time" argument soundly refuted

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 10:31:37 05/08/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 08, 2001 at 13:21:07, Wayne Lowrance wrote:

>Bob, I think that I have at times destroyed book lines for normal time controls
>by playing blitz and bullet with losses. But these lines may be perfectly sound
>for long time controls. I do not know this to be fact.

I do not think this matters all that much for a computer. Even then,
nearly all games were played with the same timecontrol.

>Also another thought. Consider two opening main lines a.) Line (a) is in fact
>better than line b). But against a better program line (a) loses, _not_ because
>it is a bad line, it just lost. Maybe line (a) was playing a superior cpu, a
>superior program and it lost.
>
>Opening line (b) is inferior to line (a) stipulated and will loose even worse
>but now both of the lines, as I understand are Kaput.

If the opening book was done manually, and line a is clearly better,
then why is b in the opening book at all?

Also, decent booklearning will account for the fact that losing at the
hands of a stronger player is not so bad. If you don't do this, you
will get into SERIOUS trouble fast.

--
GCP



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.