Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 00:01:05 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 08:27:40, John Lowe wrote: >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 Hi John, The GMs are teaching the way to do it, that's why I mention them. The computers are "special players". I mean that their strenght is about the one in SSDF list, but made in a different way than a GM. This is why they are (generally stronger) about 300 points at blitz and about 300 points weaker at correspondance chess. Do you know how much weaker is a program (generally speaking) without its opening book or endgame tablebases? About GMs that they understand the openings and have them all in their mind I can tell you that this is a true lie. Pls. take a look to the chess informant books and see how they play lines 20 year ago and now. Why if they understand the books? Look the match for the 1972 world title won by Fisher. How could it be possible that he got surprised in his favorite B97 poisoned pawn if he was the most expert on that line? Look the ECO and see how many playable positions there are and they are developing everyday... We are talking about 5.000.000 positions. However I have nothing against players that want to use the program how they like. It is their right to do it. Ciao 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.