Author: Peter Berger
Date: 21:34:43 05/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2001 at 23:36:19, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 28, 2001 at 20:13:55, william penn 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. >> >> >> no way, most of your top programs today will make book moves even without an >>opening book, > >There are many openings where the true outcome is hidden 18-20 plies deep and >you will surely get sucked into a trap without an opening book. The Evans >Gambit lines are a swell example of that. A computer playing such a sequence >without a book will get slaughtered by one with a [good] book. > >>unless you mean that the program saves time, which makes it >>stronger, since it can use more time later to calculate the middlegame >>positions, > >That is a minor factor, and would not account for more than 30 ELO or so at a >maximum. > >>still i don't see this accounting for 80 percent of its strength. > >At least 80%. Of course, it is just my estimate. But I am very sure of it. I think this number is completely bogus - did you do any tests ? I'd be _very_ surprised if having a decent opening book is worth more than 70 ELO against having no opening book at all but some basic opening rules and making sure that the program varies moves slightly to escape book learning . Look at Chessmaster6000 performance for example - one could argue that this program is very close to having no opening book at all . Still it did and does very well . pete
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.