Author: william penn
Date: 05:19:14 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2001 at 23:33:31, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. OKAY . Dan , since Deep Fritz without a book is 80 percent weaker, then you should have no trouble beating it in a match, okay you do the math, suppose fritz is 2500 elo, with it's opening book. Take away the book then that is minus 80 percent, which leaves what? 1200 elo (this is a guess i am too lazy to do the math). Surely you were exaggerating.
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.