Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 14:15:30 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2001 at 18:59:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >I feel the same way about opening books. The opening book is a very tough >problem, and I think that the author of the opening book should be considered a >co-author of the chess program. I don't think that something that selects moves >for you should be considered a trivial part of the interface, for instance. > Are you refering to the recent Xboard book discussion? The chess knowledge in an opening book are the moves themselves. So the creation of the opening book is definitely an imporant part of the finished product. But whether it's your code that actually says to the interface: "Make this move, that my programmer have deemed a good move for me to play", or whether it's Xboard that says: "The programmer of this engine has made an opening book for his program. In this position, there _are_ some of his book moves possible. I will choose one according to the rules he have decided in the book", matters not IMO. Why would it? It has nothing to do with chess knowledge. It has to do with reading a file, representing information etc. It _is_ in fact like using printf() (or cout, as I use).
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.