Author: Chris Carson
Date: 13:45:03 06/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2001 at 12:57:46, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On June 23, 2001 at 12:23:02, Chris Carson wrote: > >>You have a good argument about "fairness", but for me, I want the books, >>learning, ... included. Just my own preference. > >That's an individual choice and all types of preferences are (of course) just as >valid. Basically, I have no problems with chess programs in tournaments (or >anywhere else). But if you want to talk about the lack of will or unreasonable >terms by GMs, GM strength of chess programs and general questions related to the >ability of program chess and so on, then it's important to know and understand >all the nuances involved. That's rarely been the case in any discussion so far. > >Regards, >Mogens I think I understand what you mean, but I am not sure. Do you mean by "nuances" the ability of the engine instead of the ability to the entire program package? I would agree that an engine with no database support is a lot weaker. If you include learning databases (created from only engine play) then it would take a lot of games to move back into the 2500+ ratings range (but it would be possible if enough games are played). My program "Dallas" has a very simple eval with very fast searching (mostly written in assembly) and builds a learning database from playing games and it's analysis of games, it updates the opening book, middle and endgame knowledge databases during this period. This means that changing the engine may make the existing database mostly worthless, but Dallas has captured a lot of knowledge this way, knowledg that I did not have to program into it, thus reducing engine changes to bug fixes for the most part. Anyway, I digress. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.