Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:15:00 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 11:36:28, Sune Fischer wrote: >On January 27, 2003 at 10:57:26, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>[snip] >> >> >>>When did Junior ever "remember" the table bases? >> >>When did Frenzee ever remember the Ruy Lopez? Same issue, yes? But I don't see >>you arguing that opening books are unfair, a la Rolf Tueschen. > >That doesn't mean I don't agree with Rolf :) > >I just think it is possible to put a bit more of the engine personality into the >book, for instance with learning. If you win against a higher rated player, >remember this position as good, if you lose to a lower rated player don't play >this again. > >However, you can see clearly from the discussions going on here that the book is >not perceived as being part of Junior, statements like: "Junior was lost out of >book" clearly distinguishes the engine "Junior" from the book _used_ by Junior. >It is as though Junior didn't lose, it was the book that lost the game on behalf >of Junior! This is also the natural way to think, it really is two very >different pieces of software. > >The same applies to the egtbs, Junior wouldn't be winning, the egtbs would be. > >However I must agree (I guess) that "the machine" is all of the above, so >depends on what you want from the match. I think Kasparov wanted to play Junior >and not the egtbs, so for that reason I think the rules are fine. The egtbs are an inherent computer capability. There will come a day when the egtb will be old tech, since the engine will compute the outcome on the fly in search. The egtb is a cpu cycle-saving "trick" as it were to bring that portion of the inevitable into the present day. Is it not so? :) Matt > >-S. > > >>:) >>Matt
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.