Author: John Lowe
Date: 05:27:40 12/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 07:55:20, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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 Hi Sandro, To use a book or not..... Your comments about grandmasters don't hold water for me. The book is "crib-sheet" for the exam. The GM has the knowlege based on his research of first class games. The GM understands the book! It's a matter of programming style - to have an exhaustive book or to have a knowlege-based program. I might get more wins for my program if I use an extensive crib-sheet but if I can get my program to "understand" the position on the board - I've made a contribution to computer chess. Most programmers would prefer the second (I hope?). Regards John
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.