Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 05:31:02 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 08:07:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 07:22:28, Steve Coladonato wrote: > >>There is a very long thread here concerning the use of a book developed for one >>program being used by another program. I am not a programmer, so I don't >>understand the ramifications of this. But, I do have a question(s). If the >>same book were used by all engines, would that not be a fair comparison of the >>engines strength? As long as a program is "in" book, it is not using any of its >>internal algorithms so the moves it is making are recognized as "best" for a >>particular line/opening. > >I doubt if it is a good idea. > >I think that there should be a small book when the program plays moves in 0 >seconds and a big book when the program read the book but does not play the >moves in 0 seconds. > >I saw cases of big tactical mistakes by program because of a mistake in a book >happen and it is easy at least to prevent it(if we know that a move is good and >the program evaluates it as a blunder we can put it in the small book). >> I think in general it is the other way round. A lot of critical opening moves in complex chess openings will not be found by engine pondering even in hours. They are the work of GMs and hundreds of assistants over decades. As in your case, that would only proof to be a poor or out of date opening book, where bad lines are not eliminated. An interesting thought crossed my mind when I read the original post in this thread. What humans actually do in tournaments is choose the opening in respect to the current opponent, not to fit his style. Anybody designed an engine yet plays book moves according to its current opponent? Andy
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.