Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 19:02:57 08/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 1998 at 08:55:50, Dan Homan wrote: <snip> >I think that playing a good opening is a very hard problem with a >very easy solution... just build a quality opening book. I this is >why some programs haven't been "tweaked" to play good openings without >a book... (I think that my program will default to something like >the '4-knights defense' without it's opening book - solid development, >but not exactly exciting chess :) <snip> If there is one position which all chess engines do poorly at, does this not speak poorly for all of them? After all, the "initial position" is just another chess position. True, it occurs more often than any other, and is a good candidate for using a "book." However, if all chess engines do poorly with that particular position, should there not be a lot of concern? Suppose there was a position several moves into the game where all chess engines did poorly. Would the chess engine designers not be concerned about that and try to make their programs do a better job with that position? True, one could have a "book" for every position which gave a particular chess engine a problem, but this seems to me to be just "running away from the problem"! Even if a "book" is to be used for each position that gives the chess engine a problem, it would seem to me that the engine designer would STILL wish to remove the need for a book [for that position]. True, the "initial position" is the most-recurring position in chess, so it diserves more attention than the rest, in terms of making a "book" to MASK the inherent deficiencies of the chess engine. Am I missing something here?
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.