Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: Why not comp. vs comp. with no book.

Author: Terry McCracken

Date: 18:42:57 05/28/01

Go up one level in this thread

On May 28, 2001 at 19:42:37, Dann Corbit wrote:

>Play 'em that way if you want to.
>
>Silly to remove 80% of a program's strength.
>
>But that's just my opinion.


First Dan you don't decrease the engine strength one iota, you know that.

This is to test the _engine_ not a combination of engine and book.

Now I'll have to do some digging to find Alan Tomalty's article back in 1987
or 88, of "Komputer Korner" fame, but he, a tester for many years recommended
to turn off _book_ and pondering to test  'engine' strength in tournaments.

It _is_ important to know the strength of an engine even before you add
books, databases etc.

Then you can optimize the whole programm, utilizing books and so on.

I concur with Alan Tomalty's concept completely, if you want to know engine
strength alone.

Terry

• Re: Why not comp. vs comp. with no book. José Carlos 07:23:22 05/29/01
  • Re: Why not comp. vs comp. with no book. Terry McCracken 14:29:10 05/29/01
• Re: Why not comp. vs comp. with no book. Dann Corbit 20:29:52 05/28/01
  • Re: Why not comp. vs comp. with no book. Terry McCracken 14:50:28 05/29/01
    • Re: Why not comp. vs comp. with no book. Dann Corbit 14:59:18 05/29/01
      • Re: Why not comp. vs comp. with no book. stuart taylor 17:41:52 05/29/01
        • Re: Why not comp. vs comp. with no book. Too complicated obviously! stuart taylor 17:56:13 06/05/01

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.