Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 04:53:10 12/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 03:16:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 30, 2002 at 02:03:57, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On December 29, 2002 at 14:07:14, Lieven Clarisse wrote: >> >>>I disagree, testing without an opening book is a good test for chess engines! >>> >>>lieven. >> >>Hi, >> >>This is totally wrong. >>Sorry, but the program has been developed considering the use of a massive book, >>which is an important part of the program. So it is like to use the program >>without legs... >> >>To me, the no use of the book or the use of a different book, it is like to test >>a Ferrari F1 with a different engine or shape:-)) >> >>Ciao >>Sandro > >Engines are used also for analysis and not only for engine-engine games from the >opening book. OK, but why not use openings book until the end of the variations? Do you know that to develop the theory up to today level a huge amount of games where needed? Chess is not perfect mathematics, so you cannot expect a program to find better moves in the early stage of the game unless they can analyse until the endgame and this would mean a huge more hardware power! > >The question which engine is better from the opening position is not relevant >for correspondence players who use chess engines to help them. If they rely on those moves instead of the theory ones they will not go too far! > >The releavant question for them is which engine is better in the opening that >they play. Why without the book. Why you do not ask GMs to play without theory? This is all nonsense! > >Uri Sandro
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.