Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 20:33:31 05/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2001 at 20:15:40, Günther Simon wrote: >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. > > >I think he has some point here but I won't do this because it makes >me eyesick to watch programs stagger blindly through singular >openings. >OTH I cant believe that you presume books build more than three >quarters of a program'strength -please tell me you were jokin'... Not at all. A program without an opening book (or worse yet -- a bad opening book) will play like an idiot compared to one with an excellent opening book. That is the major difference between the professional programs and the amateur ones. However, the amateur engines are getting much better books, allowing them to play a lot smarter. Classical chess openings have been debugged by thousands of supercomputers (the human brain). As time goes on, we figure out what works and what does not. Just as a good human player *must* add many sound openings to his repertoire to play good chess, so also the computer must do the same. Can you imagine two players with GM ability, but one who has never studied openings and the other who has studied them for a decade? How do you suppose it will turn out for the neophyte with equivalent talent but not equivalent knowlege.
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.