Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:59:33 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 14:18:31, William H Rogers wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 13:53:14, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>http://f11.parsimony.net/forum16635/messages/33526.htm > >I wonder Dann, just how much an improvement or how many ELO points you would >gain if you compared the two programs with one using a superior opening book. I >have always maintained that good books could greatly improve a persons/programs >game. Over sized books, and I mean those who have calculated the first 20 or 40 >moves are not a sign of a programs true strength, but a sign of the strength of >all of the masters who defined those moves before. If you are playing the moves >make by masters and not deciding which move to make yourself then you have not >added to your programs strength only its ablilty to read and play someone elses >games. We can say the same thing for human players. 200 years ago, they probably were inventing their own openings half of the time. Now, openings are carefully researched (NCO, ECO, MCO, etc.). Hence, the modern players can "monkey-see, monkey-do" for the first bunch of moves. Humans are constantly debugging openings. To continue to play a bad opening after it has been debunked is a very bad idea for obvious reasons. >I am really glad to see the results of your tests though and I hope that you do >some more I intend to continue the experiment, since the significance is very low still.
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.