Author: Alessio Iacovoni
Date: 10:51:41 10/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 1998 at 13:41:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I am currently playing a game Junior 5 vs. Hiarcs 6.0 with the book turned off on Junior 32 platform. I would have expected the two engines to play the same move over and over again.. but in fact they haven't... the opening were all different and I haven't turned on any "random" feature. Why is that?
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.