Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 11:37:13 12/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2002 at 14:23:35, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 29, 2002 at 13:53:52, liam hearns wrote: > >>i think its very informative,no books ,let us see what the engines are like >>without there ref. library! > >What do you learn about from the fact that Tiger beated shredder 5-3 with black >with 1.e4 d5 exd5 Qd5 3.Nc3 Qe6+? > >You can learn nothing from this about it's strength after 1.e4 e5 or 1.e4 c5. > And what do you learn if X beats Y in the line "1.e4 d5 exd5 Qd5 3.Nc3 Qe6+?"? You learn nothing from this about its strength after "1.e4 e5 or 1.e4 c5". What is meaningless to you can be meaningful to someone else. "Meaning" is not absolute. Let engines play w/o books against each other measures exactly that: how strong they are w/o books. Let engines play w/ books against each other measures exactly that: how strong they are w/ books. The fact that most people let the engines play w/ books against each other doesn't make the other thing 'less worth', or 'meaningless'. And how good the engines are, when you use them for something meaningfu.. I mean.. different, like analyzing your games, is yet another subject. I could ask what you learn _at all_ from this computer engines games - apart from the fact that X beats Y in a particular setup, but I will refrain from that. :) Sargon PS. Let engines play (w/ or w/o book) but with activated screen saver is also yet another test ;)
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.