Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:41:29 10/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 1998 at 12:13:34, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >1) Shouldn't computer strenght it rather be measured on "average" entry-level >computers.. i.e. the ones actually used by the majority of people? > >2) Also.. do programs benefit in the same way from higher speed and increased >hash tables? If not, tests would not be comparable, therefore useless. > >3) Why are books used in tests? Shouldn't a top level computer program be >capable of doing at least decently in the opening phase *without* resorting to >it's book? If the answer is no.. then it could be easily beaten by even >lower-performing computers by having it systematically go out of book. Or am I >wrong? Computers would do just as well without a book as a human that had *never*seen an opening book. And I'd bet the human would fall into many of the same sorts of "traps" that the computer would. But even worse, the computer would tend to play the same opening every time, since the tree search is deterministic.
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.