Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: José Carlos

Date: 07:23:22 05/29/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 28, 2001 at 21:42:57, Terry McCracken 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.
>
>
>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


  Can you define "engine"? Can you state clearly what parts of a program belong
to the "engine" and why, and what parts are not the "engine" and what are they
then?
  I'm so curious...

  José C.

PS.: My own definition of engine include everything but the GUI.



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.