Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:25:00 06/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2002 at 15:18:33, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On June 21, 2002 at 12:45:30, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>The fact that some amatateurs agree does not change the fact that commercial >>engines can benefit from using one author in different teams i.e. the book >>author. > > >The commercial programs all have different opening experts. I don't think they >will or want to use another opening book. Don't forget that trusting the use of >another book involves a lot of testing. Even if I *could* use f.e. the ChessBase >books, I would never do it. Rely on your own book, which is thoroughly tested, >that is the only way. I believe that changing the book in a tournament can only this is complete nonsense Jeroen, because the alternative for most amateurs is to have an automatic generated book which is poor tested and even worse designed. Compared to that using *any* commercial book is a boost of the weakest chain by up to 500 points easily. The average non-rated chessprogrammer is simply not capable to parttime make a chess engine AND a good book. Not a single program in coming world championship which scores more than 5 out of 9, will have a book by himself, with exception perhaps of Shredder, but that's a pro. Necchi seems nonexisting to me. Best regards, Vincent >do damage, as you will never know exactly what line this book is coming up with. >And how your program will react to it. > >Still, I agree it is a bit strange to have this sentence in the rules that >multiple books by one author are acceptable. On the other hand, it is extremely >difficult to verify. > >In general I am happy there are rules. This is something to start with. Last >year in Maastricht showed how it should NOT be. At least, in my opinion. > >Jeroen
This page took 0.01 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.