Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 04:55:20 12/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 07:53:10, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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 Uri, so how is Shredder 7? What about my statements? Any comment? 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.