Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 04:37:39 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 18:31:22, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On August 26, 2002 at 14:01:00, Steve Coladonato wrote:
>
>>On August 26, 2002 at 09:56:24, José Carlos wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Same thing happens in human chess. You prepare an opening. The opponent is
>>>well prepared too. You go into your analysis and your opponent comes up with a
>>>move you missed. You lost out of book.
>>>
>>>>Matthias.
>>>
>>> José C.
>>
>>That's exactly correct. And at that point it is the skill of the player that
>>determines the outcome. Why not allow the skill of the engine to determine the
>>outcome by limiting the book depth?
>
>Why assume that the skill and effort of the book writer are less interesting
>than the skill and effort of the engine writer?
>
>Why assume that a 14 ply book will perform less well than a 50 ply book {on
>average}? If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true.
>
>The engine authors for the professional systems get to spend all day, every day
>improving their chess engines. The amateurs don't get to do that. How about if
>we force the professional developers to take 50 weeks of vacation per year to
>even things out?
>
>Actually, they probably wouldn't mind it so much if they still got the same pay.
>;-)
I don't think the depth of the book is really relevant. The standard book could
be whatever is decided but available for all and mandatory for tournaments.
And from the importance of book writers, it seems that humans are still way
ahead of the chess engines. The advantage the engine has is that it doesn't
require memorization as humans do.
I think I have opened a can of worms ;-)
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.