Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:34:27 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 15:55:38, Russell Reagan wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 15:04:45, William H Rogers wrote: > >>On August 26, 2002 at 11:20:21, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On August 26, 2002 at 10:17:04, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >>> >>>>A book is not part of the engine. >>> >>>Please define "engine" for us, then we can have a discussion. >>> >>>Russell >> >>An engine Russell is one that examines the chess board according to its weights >>and measures and then selects the best move according to its calculations, not a >>program that goes through a list of moves made by past masters and chooses one >>that they made. The following is not a chess engine in my opinion but just an >>automated chess move encylopedia with not chess knowledge required. >>Bill > >If you define "engine" as not having a book, then of course you can say, "A book >is not part of the engine." Unfortunately, the "engine" is only one part of the >program as a whole. > >I think it's another discussion about whether or not it's ok to use opening >books or endgame tablebases that you didn't make, but these things, if created >by one of the program's authors, are a part of the program. If you want to >define the engine as only being the searching and evaluation part of the >program, fine. It's only a matter of using different terminology. Algorithms + Data structures = programs. Those data structures are pretty useless without any data in them. I think we should also ban piece square tables and piece values. ;-) Then we will really be finding the 'strength of the engines'. In fact, let's remove 100 percent of the data and find out what the engines can compute then. Certainly, we can discover how creative the programmers are then, even at finding out what a legal move is.
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.