Author: William H Rogers
Date: 10:15:19 10/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
I do not agree, for example: Lets assume that a certain program only has a rated strenght of 1600 elo, but has an opening book of 15 million moves, or at least the same book as was used by the winning side in game one. Game one was won without the program getting out of its opening book. That is not CHESS! If people want to use opening books, they should be limited to 5 or 10 moves only, otherwise they are not opening books but midgame books or end game books. What we are looking for a a chess engine that 'will' eventually be able to solve the chess game and then maybe it could be able to teach us humans how to play better. I still agree that all of the above options are good for the end user, at least he has the option of turning them off if he wishes, at least in most programs. The ultimate idea of chess programming is to create a program that know how to play chess without outside help, and the outrageous sizes of some of the books that are in existance now a days are defeating the main idea. When I first started writting my program, I didn't know how to implement a book feature, so I programed opening stratagies. Later I added books moves. But the point is, my program will play without them and I consider that a positive. I never knew how long winded I was. Sorry :-) Bill
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.