Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 12:56:13 10/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
I completely disagree with William's post. Any chess programmer could spend time adding heuristics to their program to improve its opening play, this is *NOT DIFFICULT*. But they choose not to do so, because an opening book is a lot easier to implement and does the job better. On October 20, 1998 at 09:45:47, William H Rogers wrote: >How about replaying the games without any opening books. Lets see how strong the >programs real logic really are. If a program is designed well, it can play a >strong game without outside help. Sure but the opening book is not 'outside help', it is an integral part of the program. >I always thought that opening books are fine for a person who wants to play >certain books to improve their game and in personal use opening books are fine, >but in tourneyments, they should be turned off. >Your example where one program won without leaving its opening book is just not >any indicator of the programs true strength, it only shows that its opening >books were better. Well yes, but so what? Does anyone complain when Kasparov wins a game through opening preparation, even though his opening novelty might have been found by one of his assistants? Does anyone suggest that GMs forget all the opening theory they know? Opening theory is part of chess, for those who don't like it there is always shuffle chess or some variant of chess that starts from a randomized position. But these are different games... >I hope that if other people read this post, they will agree. >Thanks for the work and time you spent on the testing. >Bill Rogers
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.