Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 04:03:20 02/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2002 at 06:23:17, Uri Blass wrote: >I believe that gignatic opening books are counter productive for chess programs. this is my opinion too. therefore i like the idea to start from a different position than our classic chess position. >I saw cases when programs blundered only because of the fact that the move was >in book. exactly what makes me angry too. i have seen SO MANY games played , on autoplayers, where the engines had NO influence in the game because of shit opening-lines. this is not chess. it is arranged chess. and arranged chess is NO chess. here bobby fischer is completely right. this counts for computerchess too. a game of chess that is arranged, is NO game of chess. it has no competition anymore. it is dead. >I believe that it is better to use a smaller opening book when every move in the >book was analyzed by chess programs and not a gignatic opening book. i see it the same. but chess programmers think different. i wonder why. i think they are concentrated to much on WINNING. and they don't care HOW to win. i am interested in seeing the engine WIN from a balanced position. i am not interested to see anyone win from a won position. thats the idea of sports. that the chances are the same for every participant. if a soccer match would start with one team having 5 goals in beforehand, nobody would like to watch it. but in chess, or computerchess, we watch the engines replay silly moves out of the mind of idiots. >Uri
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.