Author: Matthias Gemuh
Date: 07:17:04 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
> >I tend to agree with you here. It seems that "chess programs" are more a >function of the "book" rather than the capability of the engine. Yet somewhere, >the engine has to go out of book so why couldn't that be after 14 moves and why >couldn't the SSDF provide a "standard" book for tournaments. Are they >evaluating the engine or the book's author? > >Of course having a "standard" book means nothing if, in fact, the book usage is >embedded in the engine as mentioned by other threads here. Why can't book calls >be a routine separate from the basic engine code. But I don't program engines >so I don't really know. It just seems that the engines performance is skewed >way too far towards the book it uses rather than it's analytical capabilities. > >Steve Hi Steve, Nobody can verify that an engine is not using book after move 14. This is probably one of the main reasons why book move are not limited. I hate to watch a game only to realize that the engine is also only watching and the game is actually played to a won/lost position by a book !!!! I am the author of BigLion (http://www.gemuh.de) and my engine interacts with book only as follows : a) look in book, b) if moves available, sort them (according to number of won games) and randomly choose one of the "good" ones. c) if no book moves, go calculate. I don't understand why some authors weave a book into every part of their engine. A book is not part of the engine. Matthias.
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.