Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 14:29:10 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2001 at 10:23:22, José Carlos wrote: >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. It's that tiny little programm like Fritz6 or Fritz6 a b or c. Or any basic instructions of any chess programm, evaluation, mobility etc. It's like an engine you put into a car or a CPU you put into a computer if I may dare make such an analogy?;) Alone it's not enough but it is the _heart_ of the chess programm. Knowing which is the strongest engine seems logical to me and then build around it. Terry
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.